«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《慢性病学杂志》[ISSN:1674-8166/CN:11-5900/R]

卷:

期数:

2013年03期

页码:

175-179

栏目:

论著

出版日期:

2013-03-30

文章信息/Info

Title:

Comprehensive evaluation of death report quality in medical Institutions of Chaoyang district in the second half of 2007

作者:

孟海英; 李涵

北京市朝阳区疾病预防控制中心,北京 100021

Author(s):

MENG Hai-ying; LI Han

Beijing Chaoyang District Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Beijing 100021,China Corresponding author:MENG Hai-ying,E-mail:344628474@qq.com

关键词:

死亡报告;  质量分析;  综合评价

Keywords:

Death report;  Quality analysis;  Comprehensive evaluation

分类号:

R195.4

DOI:

-

摘要:

目的 对2007年7～12月北京市朝阳区医疗机构死亡报告质量进行评价,为提高死亡报告质量及完善其评价体系提供参考依据。方法 单纯随机抽样后,应用SPSS 11.5和Excel 2003统计学软件,分别采用综合指数法、秩和比法、TOPSIS法、密切值法、灰色关联分析法及优序法进行综合评价。评价指标包括网漏报率、卡漏报率、网重报率、卡重报率、迟报率、不规范率、网不完整率、卡不完整率、网不准确率、卡不准确率及死因不明报告率。结果 综合指数法与灰色关联分析法结果一致:各级医疗机构优劣顺序从高到低依次为三级、二级、一级; TOPSIS法、密切值法与优序法结果一致:优劣顺序为二级、三级、一级医疗机构; 秩和比法分档排序结果:二级医疗机构为上等,三级和一级医疗机构为中等。结论 将11项零散的指标整合起来,对优劣等级作出了客观、全面的判断,体现出综合评价的优越性。六种综合评价方法相互验证了结果的稳定、可靠,使质量评价内涵更丰富,结果更具说服力。医疗机构死亡报告质量有待提高。

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the report quality of death reports in medical institutions of Chaoyang district in Beijing in the second half of 2007 and to provide evidence for improving death report quality and to complete its evaluation system.Methods After simple random sampling,we assessed death report quality by comprehensive index method,RSR method,TOPSIS,close value method,grey related analysis method and optimizational method,using SPSS 11.5 and Excel 2003.The evaluation indicators include network missing report rate,paper missing report rate,network repeated report rate,paper repeated report rate,late report rate,nonstandard rate,network incompleteness rate,paper incompleteness rate,network inaccuracy rate,paper inaccuracy rate,report rate of unknown cause of death.Results From superior to inferior,comprehensive index method and grey related analysis method had the same result: the rank was tertiary,secondary,primary medical institutions; TOPSIS,close-value method and optimizational method had the same result: the rank was secondary,tertiary,primary medical institutions; the result of RSR was: secondary medical institutions was superior,tertiary and primary medical institutions were moderate.Conclusion The rank was judged objectively and roundly by combining eleven sporadic indicators,showing the advantage of comprehensive evaluation.The six comprehensive evaluation methods verified the stability and reliability of results mutually,making the connotation of quality evaluation richer and the results more convincing.The report quality of deaths in medical institutions should be improved.

参考文献/References:

[1] 北京市卫生局.北京市国际疾病分类ICD-10死因统计指导手册[M].北京:中国协和医科大学出版社,2003.
[2] 周脉耕,王玉英,葛辉,等.中国2004年县及县以上医疗机构死亡病例报告质量评价[J].中华流行病学杂志,2006,27(4):328-332.
[3] 封宝琴,张燕萍,齐惠萍,等.死因监测质量评价方法及应用[J].疾病监测,2007,22(3): 203-205.
[4] 张辉,宋桂德,杨溢.天津市居民死亡原因监测网络直报评价[J].中国公共卫生,2007,23(9):1112-1113.
[5] 赵丽英,翟力军,李丹.2005年东城区医疗机构死亡病例报告质量调查[J].中国公共卫生管理,2007,23(2):188-189.
[6] 卫生部办公厅.县及县以上医疗机构死亡病例监测实施方案(试行)[S].2004.
[7] 潘溪柳,陈爱娟.浅谈《居民死亡医学证明书》填写中存在的问题[J].海军医学杂志,2006,27(3):249-250.
[8] 北京协和医院世界卫生组织疾病分类合作中心,编译.疾病和有关健康问题的国际统计分类(ICD-10)[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,1996.
[9] 孙振球.医学综合评价方法及其应用[M].北京:化学工业出版社,2005.
[10] 方积乾.卫生统计学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2003.
[11] 高永,王玖,石德文.加权TOPSIS法综合评价在Excel中的实现[J].中国卫生统计,2007,24(4):428-429.
[12] 姜芳晶,杨维中.医学常用综合评价方法[J].疾病监测,2006,21(6):325-328.
[13] 陈晓冬,陈晓玲,郭希风,等.3种医院综合评价方法的比较分析[J].中国医院统计,2001,8(2):67-70.
[14] Mathers CD,Ma Fat D,Inoue M,et al.Counting the dead and what they died from:an assessment of the global status of cause of death data[J].Bulletin of the World Health Organization,2005,83(3):171-177.
[15] 苏景萍,张德全.关于提高统计信息质量的探讨[J].中国卫生统计,2006,23(5): 470-471.
[16] 宋桂香,郑文蔚,张金峰,等.影响上海市死因监测工作质量的原因分析及对策[J].上海预防医学杂志,2006,18(10):512-515.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

作者简介:孟海英,硕士,主要从事生命统计工作 通讯作者:孟海英,E-mail:344628474@qq.com

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2014-07-08