Background:To evaluate the quality of chronic care provided by public health centers located in a South Korean metropolitan city using a modified Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). Methods: We conducted self-evaluation surveys and collected data using a modified ACIC from twenty five public health centers. Cultural validity of the original ACIC was examined by the public health and nursing science experts. Based on expert reviews, cognitive interviews, pre-test results, five items of the original ACIC that were not relevant were deleted. The response scale was changed from twelve-point Likert scale to Guttman scale but its scoring system was maintained. Results: Eighty eight percent of public health centers in this study reported that their overall quality of chronic care was at a limited or basic level. About 68% of the centers reported that the organization was as reasonably good or fully developed to provide chronic care. On the other hand, 96% of the public health centers reported that the clinical information system was at a very limited or basic support level. The decision support, the integration of Chronic Care Model components, the delivery system design, the community linkages, and the self-management support were evaluated as limited or basic level of support by more than half of the public health centers, respectively. Conclusion:In a metropolitan area of South Korea, quality of chronic care in public health centers was not found to reach acceptable levels of services. It is critical to enhance the quality of chronic care in public health centers.

No abstract

No abstract

= Abstract =Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the primary care quality of a public health center in a rural area using the Korean Primary Care Assessment Tool (KPCAT). It also examined some methodological issues in applying the KPCAT and interpreting its results. Methods:Seventy-nine patients who had visited their doctor more than four times responded to the KPCAT questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and a radar chart were used in analyzing data. Sign test was used to test the KPCAT score difference by don't know option scoring methods. Results:Median and interquartile range of the public health center's KPCAT scores were forty-five and sixteen points, respectively. Only the median of the first contact domain reached the expected value of seventyfive points. The proportions of those who scored under the expected value were under fifty percent in two of four comprehensiveness items, all of three coordinating function items, two of five personalized items and all of four family/community orientation items. There were some methodological issues including, how to score don't know option and make sure response scale consistency. Conclusions:There was much room to improve the primary care quality of the rural public health center.Especially, improvement is needed in the domain of coordinating function and family/community orientation. We also hope that methodological improvement of the KPCAT contributes to more valid and reliable primary care assessment.