ObjectiveTo investigate the current situation of orthopedic quality control and management in county-level regional general hospitals in Guangdong, and to provide a scientific basis for further standardizing the procedures of orthopedic quality control and management in county-level regional general hospitals and continuously improving the work of provincial orthopedic quality control center.MethodsFrom June 2019 to July 2020, online and offline questionnaire survey and field survey were used to investigate the quality control and management of orthopedic departments in 22 county-level regional general hospitals in Guangdong.ResultsAmong the overall scores of the surveyed hospitals, the highest score was 96.5, the lowest score was 72.0. There were 6 hospitals with a total score of “excellent” (accounting for 27.3%). The “facilities and equipment” and “medical quality” of the surveyed hospitals were relatively valued. Taking Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong as the center, the districts and counties were divided into the east, the south, the west and the north regions, and the difference in overall scores of orthopedics among the four regions was statistically significant (F=6.299, P=0.004). The unqualified rates of department setting, key technology development, average hospitalization days of representative diseases, equipment allocation, personnel allocation, department management and building layout were relatively high, which were 77.3%, 63.6%, 45.5%, 40.9%, 40.9%, 36.4% and 36.4%, respectively. Most hospitals had set up special debridement rooms in orthopedic department (95.5%), and the management and monitoring of the use of antibacterial drugs was mostly reasonable (90.9%). In terms of the level of orthopedic medical treatment, only 3 hospitals with sufficient key technologies reached the standard, accounting for 13.6%, and only 7 hospitals reached the standard of scientific research capacity, accounting for 31.8%. In terms of quality control, the numbers of hospitals with qualified medical record sampling (72.7%), perfect management and supervision mechanism (86.4%) and quality management team in departments (77.3%) were the least. In addition, among the investigated hospitals, beds were in short supply in orthopedic departments, with 12 hospitals accounting for 54.5% being deducted; 16 hospitals (72.7%) were deducted for unqualified doctor-patient ratio and 11 hospitals (50.0%) were deducted for unqualified nurse-patient ratio.ConclusionsThe overall level of orthopedics construction and management in the surveyed hospitals is uneven. The medical professional and technical level is insufficient. It is difficult to meet the practical needs, and there is an imbalance in the ratio of medical personnel. In the future, it is necessary to strengthen the quality control of orthopedic medical care, strengthen the medical technology training of county-level regional general hospitals and increase the medical and health resources and capital investment, so as to improve the quality control of county-level regional general hospitals.
Objective To construct a multi-dimensional risk assessment system and scale for the prevention and control risk of respiratory infectious diseases in general hospitals, and make evaluation and early warning. Methods Through the collection of relevant literature on the prevention and control of respiratory infectious diseases during the period from January 1st, 2020 to December 31st, 2022, the articles related to the risk assessment of respiratory infectious diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, COVID-19 and influenza A (H1N1) were screened, and the Delphi method was used to evaluate the articles and establish an indicator system. The normalized weight and combined weight of each item were calculated by analytic hierarchy process. The technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution method was used to calculate the risk composite index of 38 clinical departments in a tertiary general hospital in Jiangxi Province in December 2022. Results A total of 16 experts were included, including 4 with senior titles, 8 with associate senior titles, and 4 with intermediate titles. After two rounds of Delphi consult, a total of 4 first-level indicators, 11 second-level indicators, and 38 third-level indicators of risk assessment for the prevention and control of respiratory infectious diseases were determined. The reliability and validity of the scale were good. The top three items with the largest combined weights in the scale were spread by aerosol, spread by respiratory droplet, and commonly used instruments (inspection instruments and monitoring equipment). After a comprehensive analysis on the 38 departments, the top 10 departments in the risk index were the departments of medical imaging, pediatrics, ultrasound, cardiac and vascular surgery, infection, emergency, respiratory and critical care, general medicine, otolaryngology and neck surgery, stomatology, and obstetrics. Conclusions This study constructed the risk assessment scale of respiratory infectious diseases in general hospitals, and the scale has good reliability and validity. The use of this scale for risk assessment of general hospitals can provide a theoretical basis for the risk characteristics of prevention and control of respiratory infectious diseases in general hospitals.
Objective To scientifically evaluate the nosocomial infection prevention and control ability of respiratory infectious diseases in general hospitals, and to construct a set of quantitative assessment system for the prevention and control ability of respiratory infectious diseases in general hospitals. Methods Papers, standards and guidelines online related to respiratory hospital infections published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2023 were selected, and infection control experience was summarized to build a pool of evaluation pionts. Then, this study used experts consultation to select the evaluation pionts, to calculate the weight coefficient and reached a consensus on the quantitative evaluation methods of each evaluation point. Results A total of 27 articles were included. The evaluation system included 17 evaluation points in 4 categories: “Basic management capacity” “Basic conditions of facilities and equipments” “The prevention and control capacity of nosocomial infection” and “The emergency response capacity”. Each evaluation point contained 3 quantitative evaluation indicators. The Cronbach’s α coefficients of the expert questionnaire consultation were 0.914 and 0.883, respectively. The scale-level content validity index was 0.932, and the item-level content validity index ranged from 0.823 to 1. Conclusions The evaluation system constructed in this study can be used for quantitative evaluation and quality self-examination of the prevention and control ability of respiratory infectious diseases in general hospitals. It also contributes to the continuous improvement of the quality of nosocomial infection prevention and control.