| Summary: | 碩士 === 義守大學 === 管理科學研究所 === 91 === According to the mainpoints of the Alma-Ata Declarination of the International Conference on Primary Health Care presented in 1978 and “Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion in 1986, the major concepts were emphasized such as “Health is seen as a resource for daily life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.” All the 369 health centers took the frontier duty of both the primary health care and public health work simultaneously in Taiwan for more than fifty years. It’s time to simplify all the service activities and get the focal concentrated points certainly for further establishment and development of national health level and to keep pace with the aim of WHO.
The performance evaluation of the health center is related with more in effectiveness, which is concerned with providing the right service at the right place and time, and less in efficiency, which is concerned with resource utilization. This study was made a search for the dimensions and indicators representative enough to promote health performance. The simple ‘‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’’ mode provided by Baguley, P. in 1994, was also adopted in this study. The database of performance indicators were obtained from senior directors（incumbent） and all the chief executive officials of Bureau of Health（incumbent and retired in recent ten years）. Initially, 134 performance indicators were obtained and arranged. 19 dimensions were also obtained in the order of mamagement category（marketing, human resource management, financial, operation management and information）and the screening method was used to get the more important indicators. After data processing, “mean” was selected for the cutting point and 82 indicators value above “mean” were extracted. Then all the dimensions were rearranged and new dimensions-indicators composition was obtained again. Questionnaire I and II opinions from CEOs（chief of the bureau）and directors, were requested for the significant priority of performance indicators. Questionnaire III was designed for self-assessment of directors in Kaohsiung County. The results and conclusion were following:
1. The cognitions of CEOs and directors are significant different, especially in financial and marketing management.（p＜0.01）
2. Finding the causes about the difference mentioned as above（Defind the factors that make the difference）：
Compared in three groups :
Group I ：CEOs（without the experiences of director）and the dircetors
Group II ： CEOs（with the experiences of director） and the dircetors
Group III ： CEOs （with and without the experiences of directors）
The results are correlated in group I and II by matched sample T-test （t=11.554， p＜0.01； t=13.483 ，p＜0.01）. In group III, T test（-1.146），p＞0.05. There isn’t relationship between the evidences with and without the experiences of directors
3. Pearson’s correlation of the indicators in establishing the correlated indicators will be useful and efficient in human resource management.
4. The Pearson’s correlation in Questionnaire II and III,“the means of indicators” and“self-assessments of health centers”are significant （r=.754, p＜0.01）. They mean that if the more significant they states, the higher scores were given.
|
|---|
