广东省职业卫生技术服务机构噪声检测记录表质量评价研究

Study on Quality Evaluation of Noise Testing Records Archived by Guangdong Occupational Health Technical Service Organizations

[目的]分析职业卫生技术服务机构噪声检测记录原始表设计的完整性及记录的规范性,评价其质量,为提高我国噪声检测记录的质量提供依据。[方法]收集广东省55家职业卫生技术服务机构的噪声检测记录原始表,检查其表格设计的完整性,内容包括质控信息(生效日期、表格号、检测依据、样品编号/测点序号、受检企业陪同人、检测人)、基本信息(受检单位名称、联系方式、检测日期)、现场情况(生产情况等、具体测点、气象条件)、仪器情况(检测仪器资产编号、检测仪器型号、校准相关内容)和噪声检测结果[区分瞬时/等效噪声声级等相关内容、等效声级(LAeq,T)、接触时间、8 h等效声级/每周平均接触值(LEX,8 h/LEX,W)、计算公式],共20项内容;同时分析其填写的规范性,内容包括信息填写完整、检测人签名、受检企业陪同人签名、空白信息处理及涂改后规范处理等5项,依据相关评分标准,计算各记录表的完整性得分和规范性得分,并分类对各机构的记录表得分进行分析。[结果]噪声检测结果缺项率达83.7%(计算公式、LEX,8 h/LEX,W及LAeq,T的缺项率分别为70.9%、56.4%及34.5%),仪器情况缺项率达78.2%(校准相关内容的缺项率达76.4%),质控信息缺项率达78.2%(生效日期的缺项率达72.7%),现场情况的缺项率达58.2%(生产情况等的缺项率达58.2%);信息填写不完整的达65.5%,企业陪同人未签名的达59.2%,空白处处理不规范的达34.5%。55家职业卫生技术服务机构记录表设计完整性和填写规范性评分合格的分别有15家(27.3%)和26家(47.3%)。甲级资质机构的设计完整性和填写规范性评分均高于乙级机构,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。[结论]55家职业卫生技术服务机构中的噪声检测记录表存在现场情况、仪器情况、计算公式等信息缺项率较高,企业陪同人签名率低等问题,应进一步加强噪声检测记录表的质量控制管理,加强相关人员关于规范记录的培训学习,提高噪声检测记录的质量。

[ Objective ] To evaluate the quality via integrity and normalization of noise testing records from occupational health technical service organizations, and to provide reference for improving the quality of noise monitoring records. [ Methods ] We collected original noise monitoring record sheets from 55 occupational health technical service organizations in Guangdong Province. The integrity was examined through 20 items including quality control （effective date of record, table number, relevant standard, sample number/spot number, representative of tested company, and inspector）, general information （name of tested company, contact, and testing date）, on-site situation （production running status, test spot, and weather conditions）, equipment （asset number, model, and calibration）, and noise testing results [instantaneous/equivalent noise level, equivalent noise level （LAeq, T）, exposure duration, eight hour equivalent sound level/weekly average exposure level （Lex. 8h/Lex, w）, and formula]. The normalization was examined through 5 items from completeness, inspector＇s signature, representative＇s signature, and handling of blank areas ＆ corrections）. We calculated an integrity score and a normalization score for each record on the basis of relevant standards and analyzed by categories. [ Results ] The missing rate of any noise monitoring result item was 83.7% （70.9%, 56.4%, and 34.5% for formula, Lex. 8d/LEx, w, and LAeq. T, respectively）, that of equipment was 78.2% （76.4% for calibration）, that of quality control was 78.2% （72.7% for effective date of record）, and that of on-site situation was 58.2% （58.2% for production running status）. Besides, 65.5% of the records was not filled completely, 59.2% did not have representative＇s signature, and 34.5% did not treated the blanks appropriately. Of the 55 organizations, 15 （27.3%） and 26 （47.3%）were qualkfied in integrity and normalization respectively. Grade A organizations presented better in integrity and normalization than Grade B organizations （P 〈0.05）. [ Conclusion ] High missing rates of on-site situation, equipment, and formula and a low rate of representative＇s signature are identified in the study, which requires further strengthening the management of quality control on noise monitoring records and training on record normalization for persons of interest, so as to improve the quality of noise monitoring records.