| Objective: This research constructs a scientific and effective,simple and practical performance evaluation indicators systerm to make a objective and fair performance evaluation in municipal public hospital.To find the factors that affecting the level of public hospital performance and to analyse the factors.Through performance evalution of public hospital,guiding scientific management of public hospitals,and promoting the continuous improvement of social benefits and economic benefits.And to provid reference and basis health administrative departments making policy decision of implementation effect of public hospital reform and resource integration.Methods: This research chose six general hospital which had morethan 500 sickbeds.Using questionnaires collected basic datas in 2012-2014 of performance evalution in public hospital.The document method,Delphi method and variation coefficient method were used selecting the evaluation indicators.Using objective weighting method CRITIC method to determining the weightof indicators.TOPSIS method and RSR method of comprehensive evaluation method were used to evaluationg performance levels of public hospitals.Five level indicators were analysed and evaluated.Results: 1.Selecting five level indicators were social benefit,service efficiency,medical quality,financial operation,research and innovation.There were 25 secondary indicators.2.CRITIC weighting method were weighting all performance evaluation indicators in 2012-2014.The weights of social benefit,service efficiency,medical quality,financial operation,research and innovation in 2012 were 0.3002,0.1791,0.2412,0.1440,0.1355.The weights in year 2013 were 0.3357,0.2801,0.2196,0.1592,0.1054;The weights in year 2014 were 0.3357,0.2801,0.2196,0.1591,0.1054.3.The results comprehensive evaluation: According to results of TOPSIS,the of all hospitals were knewed.We can rank depending on the.According to RSR method,the was divided into four grades which were poor,fair,good and better.Hospital A,B,D,G,F rankings are 1,5,3,4,2 in 2014.A was in the better grade,G and F were in good grade,B and D were in fair grade.Hospital A,B,C,D,E,F rankings in 2013 were 2,4,6,1,5,3.A and D were in the better grade,B and F were in good grade,C and E were in fair grade.Hospital A,B,C,D,E,F rankings in 2012 were 2,4,5,1,3,6.A and D was in the better grade,B and E were in good grade,C and F were in fair grade.4.The results of 5 level indicators evaluated: The first,the patient satisfaction,Bed turnover times,average length of stay,the survival rate of critically ill patients,the positive rate of large-scale equipment inspection,the passing rate of primary care,the hospital infection rates and surgical frozen and paraffin pathological diagnosis rate of all public hospitals can reach the quality control standards of tertiary hospitals.Only the bed occupancy rate exceeds the scope of tertiary hospital quality control standards.Sencondly,in 2014 the ranks for social benefit of hospital A,B,D,G,F were 2,5,1,3,4;the ranks for service efficiency were 3,1,4,2,5;the ranks for medical quality were 5,3,1,2,4;the ranks for financial operation were 2,4,5,3,1;the ranks for research and innovation were 2,3,4,1,5.Conclusion: 1.Weighting method was scientific and reasonable.Combined two kinds of comprehensive evaluation methods was complementary advantages,can improve the credibility of the evaluation results.2.We can know the performance level of hospitals were higher by the comprehensive evaluation method.Each hospital had its own advantages and disadvantages in performance.We found that hospitals in the management problems directly affecting the results of performance evaluation.So,hospitals should be improved according to their own situation. |
PDF Full Text Request