2010—2017年京沪卫生事业发展规划指标对比分析

Analysis of the achievement of the health development planning in Beijing and Shanghai from 2010 to 2017

目的分析2010—2017年北京、上海地区卫生事业发展规划指标设置及实现情况,为两地规划的比较研究及其他地区的卫生事业发展提供决策参考和依据.方法对京沪两地卫生规划文件进行梳理,采用描述性分析法,分析2010—2017年京沪卫生规划指标及变化趋势,评价京沪卫生规划指标完成总体情况.结果 2010—2017年京沪两地基本达到了卫生设施、卫生人力等方面的规划指标,完全达到了健康结果方面的规划指标,但并未实现在服务效率、卫生筹资方面的部分指标.京沪规划指标的设定在精细程度、侧重方面有所不同,体现了某些领域内卫生工作绩效的差异,反映了两地卫生发展战略思路的不同.结论建议京沪两地政府充分重视规划的指导作用,形成规范的规划评价及监测机制.同时,应加快标准化的信息建设,为常规监测及地区比较奠定基础.此外,对于规划分析中发现的如政府卫生投入方面的差距等问题,应及时予以重视.

Objective To evaluate and analyze settings and implementations of health development planning indicators in Beijing and Shanghai from 2010 to 2017. To provide evidence-based references and experience for health development planning and policy-making for the two cities and other regions based on comparative study. Methods All government health planning documents of the two cities were reviewed. Descriptive analysis was used to compare the level and trend of the health planning indicators in the study period. The overall achievement of the implementation of these planning indicators was further evaluated. Results From 2010 to 2017,Beijing and Shanghai had both basically achieved their objective indicators in terms of health facilities and health human resources,and had fully met their planning goals in health outcome aspects. However,the two cities had not fulfilled their expectations in health service efficiency and financing aspects. Each city had its detailed features and focus in health planning,reflecting the differences in health setting performance in certain areas,as well as the differences in development strategies. Conclusion Beijing and Shanghai might attach full importance to the guiding role of health planning,and form a standardized evaluation and monitoring mechanism using health indicator system. Meanwhile,it is proposed that information system and infrastructure be enhanced to support routine surveillance and regional comparison. In addition,it is suggested to pay attention to problems such as gaps of government input found in plan analysis in a timely manner.