期刊文献+

基于DRGs的妇科专业医疗质量管理体系构建及应用 被引量:10

A DRGs-based medical quality evaluation system for gynecology specialists: establishment and application
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的应用DRGs构建专科医院妇科各病区医疗服务质量管理评价体系。方法应用DRGs对2016年妇科出院的患者信息进行风险调整的基础上,采用医疗能力、效率和安全3个维度构建医疗质量管理体系,并根据各维度分值乘以其权重系数获得综合评分。结果妇科10个病区的综合评分为0.89—1.08,均值为0.99,B病区评分最高,I病区评分最低。医疗能力评分为0.87~1.12,均值为1.00,B病区最高,I病区最低;效率评分为0.93~1.23,均值为1.00,J病区效率最高,E病区效率最低;安全评分为0.89—0.99,均值为0.94,F病区评分最高,A病区评分最低。结论构建的DRGs评价体系能够有效地评价妇科各病区的医疗服务质量水平,为科室精细化管理方向提供依据。 Objective To establish a medical quality evaluation system for gynecology wards in specialized gynecalogy hospitals by means of DRGs. Methods DRGs method was used to adjust risks of the information of gynecology inpatients discharged in 2016. On such basis, the medical quality evaluation system was built on the three dimensions of medical ability, medical efficiency and medical safety, while a general scoring was obtained by multiplying the scoring of the dimension with its respective weighting coefficients. Results The general scoring of the 10 wards ranged between 0.89 - 1.08, averaging 0.99. That of Ward B ranked the highest, and Ward I the lowest of the ten. The medical ability scoring ranged between 0.87 - 1. 12, averaging 1.00;That of Ward B ranked the highest, and Ward I the lowest of the ten. Medical efficiency scoring ranged between 0.93 - 1.23, averaging 1.00 ; That of Ward J ranked the highest, and Ward E the lowest of the ten. Safety scoring ranged between 0.89 - 0.99, averaging 0.94 ; That of Ward F ranked the highest, and Ward A the lowest of the ten. Conclusions The medical quality evaluation system based on DRGs can effectively evaluate wards of a gynecology department, supporting their fine management.
出处 《中华医院管理杂志》 CSCD 北大核心 2017年第10期742-745,共4页 Chinese Journal of Hospital Administration
基金 上海申康医院发展中心管理研究项目(2016SKMR-05)
关键词 疾病诊断相关组 医疗质量管理体系 妇科 精细化管理 Diagnosis-related groups Medical quality evaluation system Gynecology Fine management
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

二级参考文献50

  • 1简伟研,胡牧,崔涛,王洪源,黄因敏,张修梅.运用疾病诊断相关组进行临床服务绩效评价初探[J].中华医院管理杂志,2006,22(11):736-739. 被引量:90
  • 2Lichtig LK. Hospital information system for case mix manage- ment[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons Press, 1986.
  • 3Neumann A, Holstein J, Le Gall JR, et al. Measuring perfor mancein health care., ease-mix adjustment by boosted decision- trees[J].Artif Intell Med, 2004,32(2): 97 113.
  • 4Yang CM, Reinke W. Feasibility and validity of International- Classification of Disease based case mix indices[J]. BMC Health Serv Res,2006(6): 1-10.
  • 5Jian W, Huang Y, Hu M, et al. Performance evaluation of inpa tient service in Beijing a horizontal comparison with risk ad- justment based on diagnosis related groups[J]. BMC HealthServ Res,2009, 30(9) : 72.
  • 6Roger FH. Case mix use in 25 countries: a migration success but international comparisons failure[J]. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2003, 70(2-3): 215-219.
  • 7北京大学.疾病诊断相关组(北京版)及配套标准研发项目报告(985项目)[R].2009.
  • 8新华网.授权发布:中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定[EB/OL].http://news.xin-huanet.com/politics/2013-11/15/c_118164235.htm.
  • 9简伟研,崔涛,王洪源,胡牧,黄因敏,张修梅,郭岩.诊断相关组死亡风险分级在医疗质量评估中的应用[J].北京大学学报(医学版),2007,39(2):145-148. 被引量:55
  • 10新华网.北京市2010-2011年深化医药卫生体制改革实施方案[EB/OL].[2010-06-13].http://www.bj.xinhuaneccorn/bjpd_bjzq/2010_06/13/content_20069660.htn.

共引文献259

同被引文献102

引证文献10

二级引证文献49

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部