Study Of Quantitative Criteria System For The Reviewing Of Senior Clinical Academic Titles

Objective: Currently, the acquisition of senior clinical academic titles generally undergoes a reviewing process by a specialist review committee. It is a comprehensive reviewing process that covers a variety of aspects, like clinician ' s academic achievements and clinical working capabilities. The current reviewing criteria system has not been specific enough, with too many general descriptions, resulting in either too much flexibility or inflexibility. In practice, due to a lack of standardized quantitative criteria, reviewing specialists tend to attach importance to clinician' s educational background, experiences, foreign language proficiency, number and type of articles published, involved research programs and awards. Less attention has been paid to their actual working capabilities or performances. Therefore, it is necessary to create a quantitative criteria system for the reviewing of senior clinical academic titles, which focuses on clinician' s capabilities, achievements, contributions and performances. Emphasis is laid on indexes describing their working capabilities and performances. The system is intended to create reliable evidences for the reviewing of senior clinical academic titles so as to improve quality and guarantee justice, transparency and fairness. It also provides important references for performance evaluation and distribution system reform in hospitals.Objects and Methods: Following a summary of experiences gained in the process of senior clinical academic title reviewing in Zhejiang Province, an accumulation of suggestions and opinions from different sources and a review of literatures, a Quantitative Criteria System for the Reviewing of Senior Clinical Academic Titles was created. The system mainly focuses on the following 5 indexes: General Information, Academic Achievements, Work Load & Quality, Research & Teaching, and Others, each of which includes several sub-indexes. Their relative values were set. Following a principle of representativeness and effectiveness, a feasibility questionnaire involvingdifferent degrees and types was conducted. Statistical analysis was made by SPSS 11.10 Software. Modifications were completed for some indexes whose total effective rate of Being Very Rational, Fairly Rational and Rational was below 75%. The Criteria System was then used to set values for indexes from 2003 Zhejiang Provincial Determination for Senior Clinical Academic Titles. With the actual determination results (pass or not) as control, SPSS 11.0 Software was adopted for statistical assessment and treatment to further evaluate and verify the feasibility of the Criteria.Results: For all the 92 questionnaires collected, 75% to 100% of the indexes were positive when they were statistically assessed as being very rational, fairly rational and rational, the total positivity rate being 94.67%. Only one index, administrative position, was below 80%(75%). The results were similar when the indexes were assessed by classifying all people into provincial level administrators, municipal and county level administrators and clinicians, indicating that the subjects consider the criteria to be rational and feasible. Statistical results show that in tt-test for total and provincial administrators, provincial and county administrators, provincial administrators and clinicians, P value is less than 0.05, indicating that provincial administrators differ from the total, county administrators and clinicians in the acceptance of the criteria. Their acceptance to the criteria is the highest. Statistical data of 745 subjects in 2003 were analyzed by quantitative criteria. The average total score was 713.8459, SD was 113.0392, which was a rational value. Four indexes General Information, Academic Achievements, Work Load & Quality and Research & Teaching account for 7%, 20%, 50% and 20% of the total respectively, which was appropriate. The data for the total of 745 Subjects, Physicians and Surgeons were statistically analyzed, the comparison between the passed and the not was made with all the P values below 0.05, i...