Perceived and reported access to the general practitioner: an international comparison of universal access and mixed private/public systems.

Timely and convenient access to primary healthcare is essential for the health of the population as delays can incur additional health and financial costs. Access to health care is under increasing scrutiny as part of the drive to contain escalating costs, while attempting to maintain equity in service provision. The objective was to compare primary care services in Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to report on perceived and reported access to GP services in universal access and mixed private/public systems. A questionnaire study was performed in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Patients of 20 practices in the ROI and NI were contacted (n = 22,796). Main outcome measures were overall satisfaction and the access to GP services. Individual responses and scale scores were derived using the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (G-PAQ). The response rate was 52% (n = 11,870). Overall satisfaction with GP practices was higher in ROI than in NI (84.2% and 80.9% respectively). Access scores were higher in ROI than in NI (69.2% and 57.0% respectively) Less than 1 in 10 patients in ROI waited two or more working days to see a doctor of choice (8.1%) compared to almost half (45.0%) in NI. In NI overall satisfaction decreased as practice size increased; 82.8%, 80.4%, and 75.8%. In both systems, in large practices, accessibility is reduced when compared to smaller practices. The faster access to GP services in ROI may be due to the deterrent effect of the consultation charge freeing up services although, as it is the poorest and sickest who are deterred by the charge this improved accessibility may come at a significant cost in terms of equity. The underlying concern for policy makers centres around provision of equitable services.

Genocide and the International Court of Justice: Finally, a Duty to Prevent the Crime of Crimes

The International Court of Justice has issued its long-awaited decision in the suit filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro with respect to the 1992–1995 war. The decision confirms the factual and legal determinations of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ruling that genocide was committed during the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995 but that the conflict as a whole was not genocidal in nature. The Court held that Serbia had failed in its duty to prevent genocide in Srebrenica, although—because, the Court said, there was no certainty that it could have succeeded in preventing the genocide—no damages were awarded. The judgment provides a strong and authoritative statement of the general duty upon states to prevent genocide that dovetails well with the doctrine of the responsibility to protect.

Notes on the History of Social Work: An Examination of the Transition from Philanthropy to Professional Social Work in Ireland

The objective of the article is to examine the way in which social work in Ireland evolved from practices of philanthropy in the late 19th century to a distinct professional strategy in the present. Results: The results of archival research show that philanthropy in Ireland was provided almost exclusively by religious organizations and was constructed within a discourse of sectarianism and rivalry between the two main denominations, Catholic and Protestant, up to the 1960s. It is only in the past 30 years that social work has become firmly established as a secular strategy. Conclusions: It is concluded that although social work is now clearly distinct from voluntary and religious-based social work practices, some of its present principles and practices remain continuous with its historical antecedents.