高级检索
宁杰, 邹佳辰, 王延赏, 孙华君, 石佳, 杜汋. 天津市医疗机构卫生应急能力因子分析法评价[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2018, 34(10): 1387-1390. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1117094
引用本文: 宁杰, 邹佳辰, 王延赏, 孙华君, 石佳, 杜汋. 天津市医疗机构卫生应急能力因子分析法评价[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2018, 34(10): 1387-1390. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1117094
Jie NING, Jia-chen ZOU, Yan-shang WANG, . Assessment on health emergency response capability of medical institutions in Tianjin city: a factor analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2018, 34(10): 1387-1390. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1117094
Citation: Jie NING, Jia-chen ZOU, Yan-shang WANG, . Assessment on health emergency response capability of medical institutions in Tianjin city: a factor analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2018, 34(10): 1387-1390. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1117094

天津市医疗机构卫生应急能力因子分析法评价

Assessment on health emergency response capability of medical institutions in Tianjin city: a factor analysis

  • 摘要:
      目的  评价天津市医疗机构卫生应急能力,揭示医疗机构各项应急能力的内在联系,为有效推动天津市卫生应急能力建设工作提供参考依据。
      方法  于2015年10月 — 2016年2月采用普查方法对天津市89家二级及以上医疗机构相关工作人员进行问卷调查,并采用因子分析法进行建模,评价天津市医疗机构卫生应急能力。
      结果  天津市医疗机构120院前急救、发热门诊情况、肠道门诊情况、传染病救治能力、医疗机构血液管理、实验室检验能力、卫生应急保障和储备、医院感染控制能力、疾病监测报告能力、卫生应急培训情况、公众宣传和媒体沟通管理11个卫生应急能力指标得分分别为(0.73 ± 0.81)、(4.64 ± 4.48)、(4.74 ± 4.26)、(0.35 ± 0.48)、(2.04 ± 1.20)、(3.11 ± 1.90)、(3.17 ± 1.79)、(10.70 ± 1.72)、(1.52 ± 0.53)、(7.48 ± 3.44)、(1.22 ± 1.19)分;因子分析结果显示,11个卫生应急能力指标可归为基础准备因子(5个指标)、临床治疗因子(3个指标)、应急意识因子(3个指标)3个因子,累计方差贡献率为61.910%;综合评价模型为综合能力得分 = 0.668 × 基础准备因子得分 + 0.172 × 临床治疗因子得分 + 0.159 × 应急意识因子得分;基础准备因子的权重最大(0.668),其次依次为临床治疗因子(0.172)和应急意识因子(0.159);天津市89家二级及以上医疗机构中,卫生应急能力较强的22家(24.72 %),卫生应急能力处于中等水平的45家(50.56 %),卫生应急能力较弱的22家(24.72 %)。
      结论  基础准备因子在天津市医疗机构卫生应急能力中占有重要地位;天津市卫生应急能力处于中等水平的医疗机构较多。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To evaluate the health emergency response capability in medical institutions in Tianjin municipality and to analyze internal relationships among dimensions of the response capability for promoting health emergency response capability in Tianjin.
      Methods  From October 2015 to February 2016, we conducted a questionnaire survey among 89 relevant staff of 89 medical institutions at a secondary level or above in Tianjin city and adopted factor analysis to construct an assessment model.
      Results  The mean scores of the 11 indicators of health emergency response capability of the institutions surveyed were 0.73 ± 0.81 for 120 pre-hospital emergency care, 4.64 ± 4.48 for fever clinics, 4.74 ± 4.26 for gastroenterology clinics, 0.35 ± 0.48 for infectious disease treatment, 2.04 ± 1.20 for blood management, 3.11 ± 1.90 for laboratory detection, 3.17 ± 1.79 for logistics support and material reserve, 10.70 ± 1.72 for nosocomial infection control, 1.52 ± 0.53 for disease surveillance and reporting, 7.48 ± 3.44 for training on health emergency management, and 1.22 ± 1.19 for communication with the public and mass media, respectively. Totally three dimension factors were revealed with factor analysis: basic preparedness (covering 5 indicators), clinical treatment (3 indicators), and emergency awareness ( 3 indicators) and the three dimension factors could explain 61.91% of the total variance. The established model for the score of overall health emergency response capability was expressed as C = basic preparedness score × 0.668 + clinical treatment score × 0.172 + emergency awareness score × 0.159. Of all the medical institutions surveyed, 22 (24.72%), 45 (50.56%), and 22 (24.72%) were categorized as the institutions with high, moderate, and low health emergency response capability, respectively.
      Conclusion  Basic preparedness factor plays an important role in construction of health emergency response capability for medical institutions in Tianjin city and about a half of the institutions possess a moderate capability to cope with health emergencies.

     

/

返回文章
返回