| Objective:This study Delphi method to medical disputes prevention and treatment indicators legislation through evaluation of the decision to select indicators, to determine the weight of index of China’s medical dispute prevention and management legislation evaluate, evaluation framework.Significance:The Delphi method to introduce legislation in the field study, the Delphi method by medical disputes prevention and treatment programs to quantify legislation, to provide new ideas for legislation to carry out its Perfection. Weight to determine the weight of different projects, analyze the reasons for different weights generated for the state to provide medical disputes prevention and treatment reference legislation, provide recommendations for improving local legislation by the Delphi method.Research:Literature research method, through Wanfang database, Chinese literature in recent years carried out HowNet Now, collect and organize medical dispute prevention and treatment of information on legislation, the initial accumulation of a certain amount of background information document; followed by legislative research group Field Beijing National research gets 45 local legislative documents, summary frequency appears legislative documents corresponding to the project, and discussions with experts, to finalize the evaluation project, the preparation of expert consultation questionnaire. Using the Delphi method, select the relevant research experts in the field, experts on the research questions to assess, through two questionnaires, focus on expert opinion, experts on different projects to get scoring. Through statistical analysis, using IBM SPSS 19.0 data collected for statistical analysis, based on the analysis results of medical disputes prevention and treatment of severe rights legislation project. Through expert consultation, the right to determine the Delphi method different projects for heavy, expert consultation, project higher weights for the appropriate reasons.Methods:literature research, Delphi questionnaire, statistical methods, expert consultationResults and discussion:The rights and obligations of medical personnel (4.87), keeping the rights and obligations of patients (4.75), medical records, access to (4.69), People’s Medical Dispute Mediation (4.84), the news media’s responsibility (4.66) rates were higher than 4.60 points, Description experts agree that both doctors and patients about the rights and obligations of the relevant medical records and legal custody and consult the relevant provisions of medical disputes people’s mediation is very important, is located in medical disputes prevention and treatment prominence legislation, must be highly valued. About the definition of the concept (3.82), medical disputes reporting system (3.94), medical liability risk capital (3.95), Annex (4.08) rates were lower than the average 4.43 points, in particular the definition of the concept of (3.82), medical disputes reporting system (3.94), medical liability risk capital (3.95), Annex (3.82) score of less than 4 points, etc., visible expert on these questions not particularly concerned. In contrast legislative purpose (4.44), a compulsory medical institutions (4.53), a code of conduct medical institutions (4.44), medical disputes Solution (4.56), body preservation, inspection (4.53), emergency medical disputes (4.50), public security organs handler (4.44), expert advice and a medical identification (4.56), medical liability insurance (4.56), arbitration and litigation (4.44) and liabilities (4.44) between the average score of 4.43 and 4.60. Thus experts believe that the obligation of medical institutions, medical institutions conduct medical dispute resolution ways to preserve dead bodies, inspection and emergency medical disputes, handlers, the public security organs, expert advice and medical evaluation, medical liability insurance, arbitration and litigation, the legal responsibility of the content should be in the prevention and treatment of medical disputes legislation highlighted, targeted to be detailed in the law. Expert evaluation to give a higher weight of the project is "the rights and obligations of medical staff", "Patient rights and obligations", "medical records storage, access," "medical disputes People’s Mediation" and "media responsibility"; expert evaluation get a lower weighting of the project is "the definition of the concept", "medical disputes reporting system", "medical liability risk capital", "Annex." Experts positive coefficient of two rounds of consultation were 80% and 100%, indicating that counseling experts are very concerned about this study, and the recovery rate to meet the basic needs of the present study. Experts in this study completed two rounds of consultation selected a total of 16 experts, experts from Beijing, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Heilongjiang, Chongqing, Hebei, Hubei, Liaoning and other places, are engaged in health law research, legislation research legal experts. Their average age 46.25±8.06 years, the average length of service 21.67±7.64 years,31.25% of the experts have a positive senior technical titles,81.25% of experts with master’s degrees. Experts familiar with the coefficient 16 is 4.35 ±0.26, explain the project expert familiarity with the better assessment of the importance of the project are the choices made after careful consideration, the resulting data is accurate and reliable. Coordination coefficient of the first round of experts is 0.23 (P> 0.05), the second round of expert coordination coefficient of 0.34 (P<0.05), illustrated by the feedback of the first round results of the consultation, the degree of attention of experts has improved, for each project also have a more in-depth understanding of the true score more objective than the first round, the experts for the purpose of gradually moving to a unified identity. In the two rounds of consultation, the different nature of the workplace, experts from different age groups and titles of key projects scores were not statistically different. This shows that the experts on the importance of the project in different titles and age groups is not very different, indicating that the right to evaluate the present study was the weight of the items have a better extrapolation. We can see from the before and after comparison of two 16 experts of the project score, the mean essentially the same, out of decline than the coefficient of variation declined. Through two rounds of scoring, the score of each project are increasingly tend to average scoring too high or too low in the second round was significantly less than in the first round. Illustrated by a first round of feedback, expert scoring more rational for the project, has become even more reasonable, so that the result is more real, more believable. |
PDF Full Text Request