DRGs在三甲医院临床重点专科绩效评价中的应用  

The Application Of DRGs In The Performance Evaluation of Clinical Key Specialty in Three A and Tertiary Hospital

作　　者：刘豆[1] 吕琳[1] 周维维[1] 尹芳[1] Liu Dou Lv Lin Zhou Weiwei Yin Fang(The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650000, Chin)

机构地区：[1]昆明医科大学第二附属医院,昆明市650032

出　　处：《中国病案》2017年第3期10-13,共4页Chinese Medical Record

摘　　要：目的对云南省某三甲医院临床重点专科泌尿外科的不同病区进行综合绩效评价,并结合不同病区疾病难度结构的分析,为医院重点专科发展提供建议。方法于2016年6月收集某院泌尿外科2015年全年相关病案数据后,运用传统指标和DRGs指标对某院泌尿外科进行综合绩效评价,分析比较泌尿外科不同病区差异,根据权重将泌尿外科病种难度结构分成4个层次(W<0.5、0.5≤W<1.0、1.0≤W<1.5、W≥1.5),运用SPSS17.0采取χ~2检验的方法分析各病区病种难度差异。结果传统指标评价结果:A病区、B病区、C病区排名分别为第3、2、1,DRGs指标评价结果:A病区、B病区、C病区排名分别为第1、第2、第3;科室3个病区病种难度统计分析结果为:难度为W<0.5层次χ~2=64.980,P<0.0001;难度为0.5≤W<1.0层次χ~2=19.111,P<0.0001;难度为1.0≤W<1.5层次χ~2=16.559,P<0.0001;难度为W≥1.5层次χ~2=19.111,P<0.0001;各病区病种难度在四个层次差异均有统计学意义。结论 DRGs指标在临床重点专科绩效评价中更科学合理,对提高医院绩效考核水平、指导临床重点专科发展有一定的意义。Objectives To carry on the comprehensive performance evaluation of the different wards of the clinical key specialty of urology department in a Three A and Tertiary Hospital in Yunnan province, and provide some suggestions for the development of the hospital combined with the structural analysis of the difficulty of the disease in different wards. Methods The relevant medical records of hospital urology department in 2015 were collected in June 2016, then adopted traditional indexes and DRGs index of the hospital urology surgical department of comprehensive performance evaluation. To conduct analysis and comparison of the differences in different wards, and divided disease difficulty structure into 4 levels （W〈0.5、0.5≤W〈1.0、1.0≤W〈1.5、W≥1.5） according to the weight, SPSS17.0 was adopted to analyze the disease difficulty difference of all the wards by X 2 test method. Results Traditional index evaluation results were： A ward, B ward, C ward were ranked as NO. 3, 2, 1. DRGs index evaluation results： A ward, B ward, C ward were ranked No. 1, 2, 3; Urology three endemic diseases difficult statistical analysis results： in difficulty level W〈0. 5, X2=64.980, P〈0. 0001; in difficulty for 0. 5ξ W〈1. 0 level X 2=19. 111, P〈0. 0001; in difficulty to 1.0 ξ W〈1. 5 level X 2=16. 559, P〈0. 0001; in difficulty for 1.5 level X 2=19. 111, P〈0. 0001; the difficulty of endemic diseases in four levels showed significant differences in traditional evaluation index. Conclusions DRGs index was more scientific and reasonable in the clinical key specialty of performance evaluation, and it had certain significance to improve the level of hospital performance evaluation as well as guide the development of key specialties.

关 键 词：DRGS 临床重点专科 绩效评价 

分 类 号：R197.32[医药卫生—卫生事业管理]