서울시 치매지원센터 종사자의 업무중요도와 업무수행도

Abstract

치매문제를 효과적으로 해결하기 위해서는 단순한 시설보호가 아닌 예방과 조기 진단 및 치료를 연계하는 포괄적인 통합관리가 중요하다. 치매지원센터는 의료와 복지가 혼합된 새로운 개념으로 급변하는 사회적 요구와 치매노인과 가족의 안녕을 도모하고자 설치되었다. 본 연구는 치매관련 업무에 참여하고 있는 전문인들의 업무중요도와 업무수행도를 파악하는데 있다. 2012.07.31.~8.17 사이에 서울시 25개 치매지원센타 188명이 응답한 설문지를 PASW18.00으로 분석하였다. 대상은 연령이 평균 34.56 세였고 치매지원세터 근무경력이 평균 23.81개월 이었다. 업무 중요도 총 53문항 모두 5점 만점에 평균 3.57 이상을 나타내 업무의 하나하나를 모두 중요하게 인식하고 있었다. 업무수행도는 5점 만점에 평균3.00 이하인 문항이 총 53문항 중 6문항 이었고, 대체로 보통 이상의 수행정도를 나타냈다. 업무중요도의 12개 하위요인 중 7개 요인은 일반특성 변수별로 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 나머지 5개 요인 즉 지역자원강화요인, 인지건강센터 프로그램 요인, 평가 실적요인, 지역자원연계사업요인, 시설관리요인 직군별로 또는 성별, 학력별, 근무별로 차이가 있었다. 업무수행도는 9개 하위요인으로, 중요도는 세분화 되었고 수행도는 치매조기검진사업과 관리사업이 통합 수행되어지고, 지역연계사업과 치매지역강화사업 통합 수행하고 있었다. 중요도, 수행도 모두 행정요인이 하부요인으로 분류되어졌다. 업무중요도와 업무수행도 간 상관관계는 나타나지 않았다. 간호직과 비간호직의 직군은 중요도 요인인 치매지역자원강화사업요인, 인지건강센터 프로그램요인에 의해 64.4%에 의해 분류될 수 있었으며, 수행도 요인인 치매조기검진과 관리사업요인, 인지건강센터프로그램요인, 직종 간 교류요인에 의해 84% 분류될 수 있었다. 이상의 결과가 시사 하는바는 실적위주로 업무수행을 하다 보니 인식과 다른 평가에 맞춘 수행임을 시사한다. 치매관리사업의 종사자 직군 간 역할의 정립과 직군 특성을 고려한 공통적인 업무기술서의 개발이 필요하며, 특히 간호직과 비간호직 직군별 업무기술서의 개발과 적용은 더욱 시급하다. 업무평가시 실적위주의 양적평가보다는 질적인 평가에 중점 두는 치매관리사업이 이루어져야 한다. | It is important to provide comprehensive and integrated management to connect prevention, early diagnosis and treatment rather than simple facility protection in order to effectively solve dementia issues. Local dementia centers were founded to meet the rapidly changing needs of society and promote the well-being of the elderly with dementia and their families as a new concept of medicine and welfare combined together. The purpose of this study was to investigate the work importance and performance perceived by professionals involved in dementia-related work. A survey was taken with 188 professionals working at 25 local dementia centers in Seoul from July 31 to August 17, 2012. Collected data were analyzed with PASW 18.00. The mean age of the subjects was 34.56, and their mean service period at a local dementia center was 23.81 months. They recorded a mean of 3.57 out of full five points on work importance across all 53 items, indicating that they perceived each and every task as important. They scored lower than a mean 3.00 out of full five points on six items of work performance of a total of 53 items, mostly recording average work performance or higher. There was no difference in seven of the 12 subfactors of work importance according to the general characteristics variables, whereas differences were found in the remaining five factors, which include reinforcement of local resources, programs for a cognitive health center, evaluation and performance, projects in connection with local resources, and facility management, according to job group, gender, educational background, and work. Work performance contained nine subfactors, and importance was segmented. Performance was based on the integration between early dementia detection and management projects and between local connection and dementia area reinforcement projects. Both importance and performance had an administrative factor as a subfactor. There were no correlations between work importance and performance. The nursing group and the non-nursing group were categorized at 64.4% according to such importance factors as reinforcement of local dementia resources and programs for a cognitive health center and at 84% according to such performance factors as early dementia diagnosis and management, programs for a cognitive health center, and exchanges among the job groups. Those findings indicate that the professionals perform according to evaluations differently from their perceptions as their performance is focused on actual results. It is required to establish roles for professionals in dementia management according to job groups and develop common work skills by considering the characteristics of different job groups. It is especially urgent to develop and apply a work skills manual for the nursing and non-nursing group. Dementia management should focus on qualitative evaluation instead of actual results-based quantitative evaluation in the process of performance evaluation.; It is important to provide comprehensive and integrated management to connect prevention, early diagnosis and treatment rather than simple facility protection in order to effectively solve dementia issues. Local dementia centers were founded to meet the rapidly changing needs of society and promote the well-being of the elderly with dementia and their families as a new concept of medicine and welfare combined together. The purpose of this study was to investigate the work importance and performance perceived by professionals involved in dementia-related work. A survey was taken with 188 professionals working at 25 local dementia centers in Seoul from July 31 to August 17, 2012. Collected data were analyzed with PASW 18.00. The mean age of the subjects was 34.56, and their mean service period at a local dementia center was 23.81 months. They recorded a mean of 3.57 out of full five points on work importance across all 53 items, indicating that they perceived each and every task as important. They scored lower than a mean 3.00 out of full five points on six items of work performance of a total of 53 items, mostly recording average work performance or higher. There was no difference in seven of the 12 subfactors of work importance according to the general characteristics variables, whereas differences were found in the remaining five factors, which include reinforcement of local resources, programs for a cognitive health center, evaluation and performance, projects in connection with local resources, and facility management, according to job group, gender, educational background, and work. Work performance contained nine subfactors, and importance was segmented. Performance was based on the integration between early dementia detection and management projects and between local connection and dementia area reinforcement projects. Both importance and performance had an administrative factor as a subfactor. There were no correlations between work importance and performance. The nursing group and the non-nursing group were categorized at 64.4% according to such importance factors as reinforcement of local dementia resources and programs for a cognitive health center and at 84% according to such performance factors as early dementia diagnosis and management, programs for a cognitive health center, and exchanges among the job groups. Those findings indicate that the professionals perform according to evaluations differently from their perceptions as their performance is focused on actual results. It is required to establish roles for professionals in dementia management according to job groups and develop common work skills by considering the characteristics of different job groups. It is especially urgent to develop and apply a work skills manual for the nursing and non-nursing group. Dementia management should focus on qualitative evaluation instead of actual results-based quantitative evaluation in the process of performance evaluation.