摘要
目的评估成都市县级疾控机构卫生应急工作规范化程度,为今后卫生应急工作规范化建设提供依据。方法采用自行设计问卷,机构自填调研问卷与现场评估相结合的方式,从组织管理、应急准备、监测与风险评估、应急响应、技术指导等方面对全市20个县级疾控机构开展评估。各机构和指标得分率按照优异(得分率85%及以上)、良好(得分率70%～84%)、一般(得分率60%～69%)、较差(60%以下)进行分类评估。运用Spearman相关分析各指标之间相关关系。结果本次评估发现,县级疾控机构平均得分72.06分。技术指导(97.50%)评估为"优异",监测与风险评估(83.58%)、应急响应(73.13%)、应急管理机构(71.88%)评估为"良好",应急准备(67.84%)评估为"一般"。评估结果一般及以下的二级指标主要集中在应急机构职责(65.00%)、应急专项经费(40.00%)、应急管理制度(40.83%)、应急作业中心(0.00%)、应急队伍管理(68.25%)、培训与演练(55.63%)、风险沟通(68.50%)和总结评估(44.33%)。应急准备得分与应急管理机构得分(r=0.523,P=0.015)、监测风险评估得分(r=0.786,P<0.01)和应急响应得分(r=0.437,P=0.047)均呈正相关。结论今后县级疾控机构应重点加强经费保障、制度建设、培训演练、风险沟通及总结评估等卫生应急工作。建议相关部门加强投入和督导,全面推进疾控机构卫生应急规范化建设,提高机构应急响应能力。
Objective To evaluate the standardization degree of health emergency work in county-level disease control institutions in Chengdu, and to provide a basis for the standardization construction of health emergency in the future. Methods Twenty county-level disease control institutions in Chengdu city were evaluated from the aspects of organization management,emergency preparation,monitoring and risk assessment, emergency response and technical guidance. The scoring rates of institutions and indicators were classified as excellent(score rates of 85% and above),good(score rates of 70-84%), general(score rates of 60-69%), and poor(score rates below 60%).Spearman correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between various indicators. Results According to this assessment,the average score of county-level CDC was 72.06. Technical guidance(97.50%) was assessed as "excellent", monitoring and risk assessment(83.58%), emergency response(73.13%),emergency management(71.88%) as "good" and emergency preparation(67.84%) as "general".The secondary indicators of the evaluation results generally and below mainly focused on the responsibilities of emergency institutions(65.00%),special emergency funds(40.00%),emergency management system(40.83%), emergency operation center(0.00%), emergency team management(68.25%),training and exercise(55.63%),risk communication(68.50%) and summary evaluation(44.33%). The score of emergency preparation was positively correlated with the score of emergency management organizations(r=0.523, P=0.015), the score of monitoring and risk assessment(r=0.786, P<0.001) and the score of emergency response(r=0.437, P=0.047).Conclusion In the future, we should focus on funding support, system construction, training exercises,risk communication and summary evaluation. It is recommended that relevant departments strengthen input and supervision, comprehensively promote the standardized construction of health emergency response and improve the emergency response capacity of disease control institutions.
作者
庹晓莉
王亮
刘辉
蒋珊
龚雪
王翎懿
杨凯
曾伟
TUO Xiaoli;WANG Liang;LIU Hui;JIANG Shan;GONG Xue;LU Biao;WANG Lingyi;YANG Kai(Chengdu Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Chengdu 610041,Sichuan Province,China)
出处
《预防医学情报杂志》
CAS
2019年第5期494-497,504,共5页
Journal of Preventive Medicine Information
关键词
疾病预防控制机构
卫生应急
规范评估
center for disease control and prevention(CDC)
health emergency
standard assessment
