|
Objective: To find a reasonable performance evaluation index system for public hospitals, as well as the rights weight determination method, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of different methods to evaluate the performance of a city 13 3 General Hospital from 2004 to 2009, six years, the search for more scientific rigorous, rational public hospital performance evaluation method for the evaluation of the results of the new medical reform, the reform of public hospitals provide reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the hospital a provincial health department collected to manage annual data reports from 2004 to 2009 database, containing a total of hospital management, the basic situation of the hospital, the number of medical services, the quality of medical services, nursing quality control indicators, inspection quality nine part of the contents of the control indicators, medical services, security and economic benefits of 117 indicators. Choose which a city of 13 general hospitals as evaluation object, and select two additional specialty hospitals as a reference. According to expert opinion, from the 117 indicators, design filter out good representative, sensitivity, and is able to reflect the public hospital performance indicators, using stratified analysis to determine an index weight, entropy weight method to determine the two indicators weight combined with the the weighted TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation, the Weighted Rank and the ratio method and the principal component score method. Use the SAS9.2 statistical software to complete the cleaning, sorting and statistical analysis of data. Results: from the quality of medical care, the quality of diagnosis, the patient's perspective, the internal quality management, financial operations, workload, as well as single disease index seven aspects of public hospitals performance evaluation. 13 General Hospital for six years, the overall performance of the upward trend, various aspects have been improved. From the relative distance in 2009 and 2 times in 2008, but the weighted RSR method did not reflect the large gap. 2009 to various hospitals in seven areas comparison showed large differences. TOPSIS evaluation results see, hospital (referred to as H6, following the same) optimal C? 0.8117, while the second H5 C? .3083, From the the relative proximity point of view there is a big gap; H3 worst, C,? 0.0631 , H1 followed. Weighted RSR Method results using a linear regression of the 13 hospitals grading Excellence H5, H6, good H2, H11, H9, H13, H8, the H1, H4, H12, H10, H7 difference H3. The analysis results show that the principal component score method,, H6 optimal f = 0.600, H5 followed, f = 0.377, TOPSIS results of similar, suggesting that there is a larger gap between the first two; worst H12 F = -0.550, H1 of followed by, f = -0.536. From the above results, weighted TOPSIS weighted rank sum ratio method and the results of the principal component score method were similar. The observed optimal and the worst two extremes Hospital found that the quality of medical care, financial operations, the workload of the top hospitals in the diagnostic quality of the patient's perspective, the internal quality management and single disease index ranking is not ideal, such as H1, contrary The other extreme are also present, such as the H6. Conclusion: The situation is good overall development of the city's General Hospital. 13 hospitals in all aspects differences are significant, specialty hospitals and general hospitals in many specific indicators there are structural differences, no reliable and effective before calibration standard for merger visits. AHP and entropy weight method to determine the index system of weights can be made without departing from the research topics using an objective method to establish a reasonable right to, to achieve the unity of theory and practice, at the same time reflects the variation of things. Although this study to determine the performance of comprehensive evaluation index system more comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the expedition, but the patients in a hospital is not balanced characteristics caused by the bias of the evaluation. To this end, we need to further adjust the index system, to make the results more reliable.
|