中国医学装备
中國醫學裝備
중국의학장비
CHINA MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
2015年
8期
57-59,60
,共4页
孙胜军%高培毅%林燕%隋滨滨
孫勝軍%高培毅%林燕%隋濱濱
손성군%고배의%림연%수빈빈
中枢神经系统%影像诊断报告%等级评价%质量控制
中樞神經繫統%影像診斷報告%等級評價%質量控製
중추신경계통%영상진단보고%등급평개%질량공제
Central nerve system%Imaging diagnosis report%Evaluation grade%Quality control
目的：对神经系统诊断报告进行等级评价，以促进诊断报告书写质量。方法：选取参与书写报告的研究生、进修生及低年住院医师10人的影像诊断报告(3个季度共90份)，进行公开评价并找出缺点与不足，根据实际情况客观分析，得出评价结果等级(即优、良、差)，并制作名单表格进行公示，对优、良、差分别以红色圆点、绿色圆点及黑色圆点表示；对评价结果做秩相关分析。结果：评价结果：第1季度30份报告优为0，良为26份，差为4份；第2季度30份报告优为5份，良为23份，差为2份；第3季度30份报告优为7份，良为23份，差为0份。秩相关分析结果比较，差异有统计学意义(r=0.338，P=0.001)。结论：影像报告等级评价法对研究生、进修生及低年住院医生的诊断报告质量提高与控制可起到一定的促进作用，可作为日常教学医疗质量控制的措施。
目的：對神經繫統診斷報告進行等級評價，以促進診斷報告書寫質量。方法：選取參與書寫報告的研究生、進脩生及低年住院醫師10人的影像診斷報告(3箇季度共90份)，進行公開評價併找齣缺點與不足，根據實際情況客觀分析，得齣評價結果等級(即優、良、差)，併製作名單錶格進行公示，對優、良、差分彆以紅色圓點、綠色圓點及黑色圓點錶示；對評價結果做秩相關分析。結果：評價結果：第1季度30份報告優為0，良為26份，差為4份；第2季度30份報告優為5份，良為23份，差為2份；第3季度30份報告優為7份，良為23份，差為0份。秩相關分析結果比較，差異有統計學意義(r=0.338，P=0.001)。結論：影像報告等級評價法對研究生、進脩生及低年住院醫生的診斷報告質量提高與控製可起到一定的促進作用，可作為日常教學醫療質量控製的措施。
목적：대신경계통진단보고진행등급평개，이촉진진단보고서사질량。방법：선취삼여서사보고적연구생、진수생급저년주원의사10인적영상진단보고(3개계도공90빈)，진행공개평개병조출결점여불족，근거실제정황객관분석，득출평개결과등급(즉우、량、차)，병제작명단표격진행공시，대우、량、차분별이홍색원점、록색원점급흑색원점표시；대평개결과주질상관분석。결과：평개결과：제1계도30빈보고우위0，량위26빈，차위4빈；제2계도30빈보고우위5빈，량위23빈，차위2빈；제3계도30빈보고우위7빈，량위23빈，차위0빈。질상관분석결과비교，차이유통계학의의(r=0.338，P=0.001)。결론：영상보고등급평개법대연구생、진수생급저년주원의생적진단보고질량제고여공제가기도일정적촉진작용，가작위일상교학의료질량공제적조시。
Objective:To evaluate the grade of the central nervous system diagnosis reports, so as to promote the quality of diagnosis reports.Methods:Public evaluation the diagnosis reports had been written by postgraduates, receive training doctors and low grade resident physicians, about ten people, to find out the shortcomings and deficiencies of the reports content, and according to the actual situation of objective analysis, evaluation, and draw the results of evaluation grades, namely excellent, good, poor in three, make a list form give publicity to mark the excellent, good, poor in red dots, green dots and black dots indicate respectively. The evaluation results analysis by rank correlation.Results: The evaluation results of first time about 30 reports, the number of excellent 0 case, good 26 cases, and poor 4 cases; The evaluation results of second time about 30 cases, the number of excellent reports 5 cases, good 23 cases, and poor 2 cases; The evaluation results of third time about 30 reports, the number of excellent 7 cases, good 23 cases, poor 0 case. The results of analysis by rank correlation is rank value 0.338, P value is 0.001.Conclusion: The image diagnosis reports evaluation method can play a certain role in improving and control the quality of imaging diagnosis reports that had been written by postgraduate receive training doctors and low grade resident physicians. The method can be used as a measure of teaching process for control and improve medical quality.
