陈冬华, 霍永彦, 王伟炳. 养老机构传染病防控能力评价指标体系研究[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2024, 42(3): 365-369. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.03.015
引用本文: 陈冬华, 霍永彦, 王伟炳. 养老机构传染病防控能力评价指标体系研究[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2024, 42(3): 365-369. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.03.015
CHEN Donghua, HUO Yongyan, WANG Weibing. Study on the evaluation index system for infectious disease prevention and control capabilities in elderly care institutions[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2024, 42(3): 365-369. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.03.015
Citation: CHEN Donghua, HUO Yongyan, WANG Weibing. Study on the evaluation index system for infectious disease prevention and control capabilities in elderly care institutions[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2024, 42(3): 365-369. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.03.015

养老机构传染病防控能力评价指标体系研究

Study on the evaluation index system for infectious disease prevention and control capabilities in elderly care institutions

  • 摘要:
    目的 科学构建养老机构传染病防控能力评价指标体系,为养老机构传染病防控能力建设提供参考。
    方法 利用文献研究、小组讨论和专家咨询,经德尔菲法确定指标体系及各级指标权重。
    结果 共向20名专家进行了两轮咨询。两轮咨询的专家积极性均为1.00,权威系数Cr分别为0.84和0.86,专家意见的综合协调系数W分别为0.49(P<0.01)和0.57(P<0.01)。第2轮评价指标的必要性评分均> 8分,可操作性评分均> 7.5分,变异系数均<0.25。经两轮专家咨询,确定了养老机构传染病防控能力评价指标体系,包含4个一级指标(“措施落实”,权重为0.372 5;“组织保障”,权重为0.280 0;“健康教育”,权重为0.192 5;“基线情况”,权重为0.155 0)、11个二级指标和57个三级指标。二级指标中较重要的有“预防性措施落实情况(权重为0.145 3)”“健康素养(权重为0.131 9)”和“疫情处置设施落实情况(权重为0.117 3)”。
    结论 构建的养老机构传染病防控能力评价指标体系科学合理。制定合理的工作制度并且能够落实到位是传染病疫情防控的重中之重。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To scientifically construct an evaluation index system for infectious disease prevention and control capabilities in elderly care institutions, providing a reference for the construction of infectious disease prevention and control capabilities.
    Methods Utilizing literature research, group discussions, and expert consultations, the index system and the weights of each level of indicators were determined through the Delphi method.
    Results Twenty experts were consulted, with the enthusiasm of experts in both rounds of consultation being 1.00. The authority coefficients (Cr) were 0.84 and 0.86, respectively, and the comprehensive coordination coefficients (W) for expert opinions were 0.49 (P < 0.01) and 0.57 (P < 0.01). The necessity scores for the second round of evaluation indicators were all > 8 points, the operability scores were all > 7.5 points, and the coefficients of variation were all < 0.25. After two rounds of expert consultations, the evaluation index system for infectious disease prevention and control capabilities in elderly care institutions was determined, including four primary indicators "(System Implementation", weight 0.372 5;"Organizational Guarantee", weight 0.2800; "Health Education", weight 0.192 5; "Baseline Situation", weight 0.155 0), 11 secondary indicators, and 57 tertiary indicators. Among the secondary indicators, the more important ones included"Implementation of Preventive Measures (weight 0.145 3)", "Health Literacy (weight 0.117 3)", and"Implementation of Epidemic Disposal Facilities (weight 0.131 9)".
    Conclusions The constructed evaluation index system for infectious disease prevention and control capabilities in elderly care institutions is scientifically rational. Establishing reasonable work systems and ensuring their effective implementation are of paramount importance for the prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks.

     

/

返回文章
返回