医院感染漏报率抽样调查方法探索  

Sampling survey methods for missing report rate of nosocomial infection

作　　者：张京利[1] 王力红[1] 赵霞[1] 马文晖[1] 赵会杰[1] 

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学宣武医院医院感染管理科,北京100053

出　　处：《中华医院感染学杂志》2011年第20期4304-4305,共2页Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology

摘　　要：目的探索出一种既节省人力和时间,又能比较客观地反映出医院感染漏报真实情况的漏报率抽样调查方法,使医院感染监测系统更加完善,进一步提高医院感染管理水平。方法采用两种抽样调查方法对医院2006-2008年的医院感染漏报情况进行回顾性抽样调查,将抽样调查得到的漏报率(样本率)与全面监测得到的实际漏报率(总体率)进行比较,观察二者的差异有无统计学意义。结果 3年同一年度内每周顺延1d抽查全部出院病历得到的抽样漏报率(6.19%、9.74%、13.33%)与当年度实际漏报率(5.15%、7.57%、11.14%)相比较,二者的差异无统计学意义;同一年度内固定抽查每周三全部出院病历得到的抽样漏报率(7.94%、9.94%、14.16%)与当年度实际漏报率相比较,二者的差异无统计学意义;同一年度内每周顺延1d抽查全部出院病历得到的抽样漏报率与固定抽查每周三全部出院病历得到的抽样漏报率相比较,二者的差异均无统计学意义。结论可采用每周顺延1d抽查全部出院病历,或固定抽查每周三全部出院病历两种抽样调查方法,替代查阅全部出院病历获取年度医院感染漏报率的全面监测方法。OBJECTIVE To find out good method for missing report survey in nosocomial infection surveillance.METHODS Two retrospective sampling survey methods were performed to obtain the yearly rate of missing report on nosocomial infection from 2006 to 2008.Then we got two different ＂sampling＂ rates and compare the difference between the ＂sampling＂ rates and the ＂actually＂ rates.RESULTS When we adopted method one or survey in patients discharged on every Wednesday,there was no significant difference（P〉0.05） between the ＂sampling＂ rates of missing report（6.19%,9.74%,13.33%）and the ＂actually＂ rates（5.15%,7.57%,11.14%）.CONCLUSION In the case of lacking of full-time infection-control personnel,we can choose sampling survey to obtain the yearly rate of missing report in nosocomial infection surveillance.

关 键 词：医院感染 漏报率 抽样调查 

分 类 号：R197.323[医药卫生—卫生事业管理]