|国家科技期刊平台
首页|期刊导航|中国医学装备|医疗设备采购量化评估体系在医院物资配置管理中的价值研究

医疗设备采购量化评估体系在医院物资配置管理中的价值研究OACSTPCD

Research on the value of quantitative evaluation system of medical equipment procurement in the management of hospital asset allocation

中文摘要英文摘要

目的:构建医疗设备采购量化评估体系,探讨其在医院物资配置管理中的应用价值.方法:基于理论调研和现场评估,从临床需求、技术水平、采购流程和服务能力4个层面制定评估指标体系,采用协方差-层次分析法(Cov-AHP)进行医疗设备采购流程的量化评估,并制定"6段式"医疗设备采购优化流程.选取2019年8月至2023年7月北京市顺义区医院采购的257台医疗设备,对257台医疗设备分别采用专家论证配置模式(126台)和量化评估配置模式(131台)进行医疗设备物资配置管理,对比两种模式医疗设备采购过程的规范性、绩效目标有效性和临床服务满意度.结果:采用量化评估模式的医疗设备在启动、论证、执行、安装和使用阶段的采购流程规范度分别为(98.42±2.83)%、(98.97±2.45)%、(96.24±3.87)%、(96.42±2.54)%和(94.82±5.31)%,均高于专家论证模式,其差异有统计学意义(t=3.741、4.385、6.551、7.620、4.563,P<0.05);量化评估模式的医疗设备采购的质量指标、进度指标、社会效益指标和成本效益指标达成率分别为(96.15±4.08)%、(96.41±2.37)%、(92.77±3.89)%和(93.06±4.33)%,均高于专家论证模式,其差异有统计学意义(t=4.156、4.562、5.014、4.069,P<0.05);量化评估模式的医疗设备相关使用人员对大型医疗设备、生命支持与急救设备、实验室检验设备、手术治疗设备和其他医疗设备的临床使用满意度评分分别为(90.24±1.89)分、(93.45±2.64)分、(95.67±3.64)分、(93.82±2.55)分和(97.25±3.89)分,均高于专家论证模式,其差异有统计学意义(t=3.678、4.079、2.845、3.628、5.023,P<0.05).结论:量化评估体系可以规范医疗设备采购流程,提升医疗设备采购绩效目标达成率,改善医疗设备临床服务水平.

Objective:To establish a quantitative evaluation system for medical equipment procurement and to explore its application value in the allocation and management of hospital assets.Methods:Based on theoretical research and on-site evaluation,an evaluation index system was developed from four levels of clinical demand,technical level,procurement process and service capabilities.The quantitative evaluation of the procurement process was conducted by using covariance-analytic hierarchy process(Cov-AHP),and a"6-stage"optimization process of medical equipment procurement was developed.A total of 257 sets of medical equipment purchased by Beijing Shunyi Hospital from August 2019 to July 2023 were selected,and the expert demonstration model(126 units)and the quantitative evaluation model(131 units)were used for medical equipment asset allocation management.The standardization of the medical equipment procurement process,effectiveness of performance objectives and satisfaction of clinical services of medical equipment procurement under different management methods were compared.Results:The standardization degrees of the procurement process of the medical equipment in the quantitative evaluation model in terms of startup,demonstration,implementation,installation and use stages were(98.42±2.83)%,(98.97±2.45)%,(96.24±3.87)%,(96.42±2.54)% and(94.82±5.31)%,respectively,which were higher than those in the expert demonstration model,the difference was statistically significant(t=3.741,4.385,6.551,7.620,4.563,P<0.05).The achievement rates of quality index,progress index,social benefit index and cost-benefit index of medical equipment procurement in the quantitative evaluation model were(96.15±4.08)%,(96.41±2.37)%,(92.77±3.89)% and(93.06±4.33)%,respectively,which were higher than those in the expert demonstration model,the difference was statistically significant(t=4.156,4.562,5.014,4.069,P<0.05).The clinical satisfaction scores of medical equipment users of medical equipment in the quantitative evaluation model for large medical equipment,life support and first aid equipment,laboratory testing equipment,surgical treatment equipment and other medical equipment were(90.24±1.89)points,(93.45±2.64)points,(95.67±3.64)points and(93.82±2.55)points and(97.25±3.89)points,respectively,which were higher than those in the expert demonstration model,the difference was statistically significant(t=3.678,4.079,2.845,3.628,5.023,P<0.05).Conclusion:The quantitative evaluation system can standardize the procurement process of medical equipment,improve the achievement rate of the performance target of medical equipment procurement,and improve the clinical service level of medical equipment.

房宇;赵坚;张春松;巩鹏

北京市顺义区医院 北京 101300北京市顺义区医院器械科 北京 101300北京市顺义区医院信息科 北京 101300北京市顺义区医院行政办公室 北京 101300

预防医学

物资配置管理量化评估层次分析法(AHP)专家论证

Material allocation managementQuantitative evaluationAnalytic hierarchy process(AHP)Expert demonstration

《中国医学装备》 2024 (002)

121-126 / 6

10.3969/j.issn.1672-8270.2024.02.024

评论