台灣地區未來二十年物理治療人力供需推估研究：第一部份—物理治療人員生產力現況調查

Projection of Supply and Demand of the Physical Therapy Manpower in Taiwan for the Next Twenty Years: Part I. Current Status and Productivity of Physical Therapists and Physical Therapist Assistants

陳祐蘋(Yu-Ping Chen) ； 李雪楨(Hsuei-Chen Lee) ； 王子娟(Wendy Tzyy-Jinan Wang) ； 楊雅如(Yea-Ru Yang) ； 李淑貞(Shwn-Jen Lee) ； 林慧珍(Huei-Chen Lin) ； 王瑞瑤(Ray-Yau Wang)

《物理治療》 29卷5期 (2004/10) Pp. 281-292

摘要

背景與目的：本研究為重新「推估未來二十年物理治療人力供需情形」的第一部份，旨在調查台灣地區目前物理治療師與物理治療生的生產力，尤其是針對目前物理治療較為人知的四大專科(神經、骨科、小兒及心肺)生產力現況，並試圖瞭解是否有因為物理治療人員性別、年齡、學歷、工作資歷、醫院層級、地理位置之不同而造成生產力的差別。方法：問卷寄發參考物理治療學、公會之會員通訊錄，在核對、刪除重複之名單後，共寄發物理治療師問卷2466份，治療生問卷1117份。問卷內容包含基本資料與目前臨床工作情形，問卷調查時間為91年9月至12月。結果：共回收764 份有效物理治療師問卷與269份有效物理治療生問卷。若以每位治療師每天工作8小時來算，不分科的平均生產力為21.39人次，常見的四大物理治療專科每日(假設工作8小時)之生產力為：神經科病患為19.72±9.50人次，骨科、運動傷害病患則為24.98±11.07人次，小兒病患則為15.55±8.75人次，而心肺、呼吸循環病患則為21.42±10.63人次。而物理治療師的特質對生產力的影響來說，醫院層級與性別對不分科的生產力方面有統計上的差異；治療師的年齡、教育程度、工作年資與醫院層級均對神經科的生產力有統計上的差異；治療師年齡、教育程度、醫院層級均對小兒科的生產力有統計上的差異；治療師的各項特質對骨科與心肺生產力均無顯著關連性。每位治療生每日不分科平均生產力為29.75人次，神經科病患為22.29±11.09人次，骨科、運動傷害病患則為35.07±41.26人次，小兒病患則為19.48±9.23人次，而心肺、呼吸循環病患則為19.55±14.78人次。而物理治療生的特質對生產力的影響來說，只有教育程度對骨科運動傷害生產力有統計上的差異，其餘特質對任何生產力均無影響。結論：本研究將目前物理治療職業人員的特質與生產力間的現況，做一概括的描述，之後會有一系列的文章，來說明未來二十年台灣物理治療供給與需求的成長。

關鍵字

生產力 ； 人力供需 ； 人力現況

並列摘要

Background and purposes: The purposes of this study were 1) to describe the general productivity and productivities in 4 special fields (neurological, orthopedic, pediatric, and cardiopulmonary) of physical therapists (PT) and physical therapist assistants (PTA) in Taiwan, and 2) to explore the association between characteristics of PT/PTA and productivity. Method: Questionnaire was mailed to the members of all PT and PTA associations in Taiwan. The total mailing number of questionnaire for PT and PTA were 2466 and 1117, respectively. The content of this questionnaire included basic demographic data and information in clinical work. Survey period was between September, 2002 and December, 2002. Results: Total returned questionnaires were 764 from PT and 269 from PTA. General productivity for a PT was 21.39 patients per day, assuming working 8 hours per day. For each specialization field, the productivity of neurological, orthopedic, pediatric, cardiopulmonary patients of each PT per day was 19.72 (sd=9.50), 24.98 (sd=11.07), 15.55 (sd=8.75), and 21.42 (sd=10.63), respectively. For the association between PT characteristics and productivity, working place and PT’s gender were significantly associated with general productivity. PT’s age, educational level, and working place were significantly associated with neurological and pediatric productivities. Working experience was also significantly associated with neurological productivity. PT’s characteristics were not significantly associated with orthopedic and cardiopulmonary productivity. General productivity for a PTA was 29.75 patients per day. The productivity of neurological, orthopedic, pediatric, cardiopulmonary patients of each PTA per day was 22.29 (sd=9.50), 35.07 (sd=11.07), 19.48 (sd=8.75), and 19.55 (sd=10.63), respectively. Only PTA’s education level was significantly associated with orthopedic productivity. There were no other significant associations between any of the PTA’s characteristics and productivity. Conclusion: This study repported
the current status of clincial practice in PT and PTA. There will be a series of articles investigating the projection of supply and demand of physical therapy manpower for the next twenty years.

並列關鍵字

Productivity ； Supply and demand of manpower ； Current status of manpower