BACKGROUND: This research is to find out the object of Medical Phone Counsel rational and satisfactory by investigating in local clinic the actual state of Medical Phone Counsel, which is a form of medical care between doctor and patient, and by grasping the difference of expectation and recognition between doctor and patient on Medical Phone Counsel which is one of the service items of Attending Physician Registration System which is to be put into effect in near future. METHODS: This research conducted a se7-administered questionnaire targeting all practitioners to the number of forty four who gave primary care in Kangnung city from August to September in 1999, and each twenty patients Per Practitioner. This research compared and analyzed the difference of recognition between doctor and patient on the following contents of Medical Phone Counsel ; General Characteristic, Frequency, Contents, Time, Satisfiability, For or Against the Medical Phone Counsel to be executed under Attending Physician Registration System and Expectations. RESULTS: The questionnaire for doctor had a 70.5% of response rate, and the one for patient 17.2%. The 40.7% of the practitioners took a Phone Counsel actively, the 55.6% took part in Phone Counsel passively and the rest 3.7% did not participate in it. The 74.2% of them took this counsel for less than three minutes. Regarding recognition on Phone Counsel, the 48.1% of them answered that they executed it as it is their duty and the 48.4% responded that they took it reluctantly in spite of their busy business. The 3.2% answered that it is not their duty. Among those in favor of Phone Counsel under Attending Physician (or Prime Doctor) Registration System, the 28.6% agreed as it is their own duty and the 71.4% was for it subject to economic compensation. While, the 62.9% of the patients answered that they had never experienced the Phone Counsel, and the 34.4% responded that they had experienced it one or two times in a yea. Among those who had experienced Phone Counsel, the 46.4% was satisfied with it. As far as the difference of expectation and recognition between doctor and patient on Medical Phone Counsel is concerned, only 45.2% of the practitioners were in favor of Medical Phone Counsel under the Attending Physician Registration System. While, the 70.1% among the patients was in favor of its execution. These two values showed a significant difference between doctor and patient (P<0.05), And the 83.9% of the practitioners insisted that the charge should be paid against Phone Counsel and only 56.2% of the patients insisted the same. There was also a significant difference between two values. (P<0.05) CONCLUSION: The practitioners were taking part in Medical Phone Counsel at any form. To the contrary, most of the patients were not. As far as the systematization of Phone Counsel is concerned, most of the practitioners had mental reluctance if there is no economic compensation. On the other hand, most of the patients had high expectation regardless of economic matters. If Medical Phone Counsel becomes systematized, it is expected that there will be a great trouble between its supply and demand.