[1]张振于志一李江峰崔楠丁磊蒋光峰.基于熵权-TOPSIS-RSR联合法的临床科室DRGs绩效综合评价研究[J].中国卫生质量管理,2023,30(07):038-42.[doi:10.13912/j.cnki.chqm.2023.30.7.09 ]
　ZHANG Zhen,YU Zhiyi,LI Jiangfeng.Comprehensive Evaluation of DRGs Performance in Clinical Departments Based on Entropy Weight-TOPSIS-RSR Joint Method[J].Chinese Health Quality Management,2023,30(07):038-42.[doi:10.13912/j.cnki.chqm.2023.30.7.09 ]
点击复制

基于熵权-TOPSIS-RSR联合法的临床科室DRGs绩效综合评价研究
分享到：

《中国卫生质量管理》[ISSN:1006-7515/CN:CN 61-1283/R]

卷:
第30卷
期数:
2023年07期
页码:
038-42
栏目:
绩效管理与医院高质量发展
出版日期:
2023-07-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comprehensive Evaluation of DRGs Performance in Clinical Departments Based on Entropy Weight-TOPSIS-RSR Joint Method
作者:
张振于志一李江峰崔楠丁磊蒋光峰
青岛大学
Author(s):
ZHANG Zhen; YU Zhiyi; LI Jiangfeng
Qingdao University
关键词:
熵权法; TOPSIS法; RSR法; 疾病诊断相关分组（DRGs）; 绩效; 综合评价
Keywords:
Entropy Weight Method; TOPSIS Method; Rank-Sum-Ratio Method; Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs); Performance; Comprehensive Evaluation
分类号:
R197.323
DOI:
10.13912/j.cnki.chqm.2023.30.7.09
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的对某三级综合医院临床科室进行DRGs绩效综合评价，为医院管理者提供参考。方法基于DRGs系统2021年56个临床科室收治病例相关数据，以病例组合指数、DRGs组数、DRGs总权重、时间消耗指数、费用消耗指数、低风险组死亡率为评价指标，应用熵权法确定指标权重，联合TOPSIS法和RSR法对科室进行综合评价。结果6项指标权重分别为0.326 1、0.209 6、0.372 5、0.044 3、0.027 1、0.020 4，DRGs绩效评价共将56个临床科室分为3档，各档科室数量分别为9个、39个和8个，各档间病种结构特征存在差异。结论熵权-TOPSIS-RSR联合法能够客观、准确的对临床科室DRGs绩效进行综合评价。病种结构影响DRGs绩效评价结果，医院应以优化病种结构为主线，根据不同特征科室采取针对性改进措施。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo explore the comprehensive evaluation of DRGs performance in clinical departments of a tertiary general hospital, and to provide reference for hospital managers.MethodsBased on the data of patients admitted to 56 clinical departments in the DRGs system of a tertiary general hospital in 2021, the index weight of case mix index, the number of DRGs groups, the total weight of DRGs, the time consumption index, the cost consumption index and the mortality rate of the low-risk group were used as evaluation indexes, and the index weight was determined by entropy weight, and the TOPSIS and RSR methods were combined to make comprehensive evaluation.ResultsThe weights of 6 indicators were 0.326 1, 0.209 6, 0.372 5, 0.044 3, 0.027 1, and 0.020 4, respectively. The 56 clinical departments were divided into 3 grades in the DRGs performance evaluation, and the number of each grade was 9, 39 and 8, respectively. There were differences in the structural characteristics of diseases among the grades.Conclusion The combination of entropy weight-TOPSIS-RSR method can objectively and accurately evaluate the DRGs performance of clinical departments. The structure of diseases affects the results of DRGs performance evaluation. Hospitals should take optimizing the structure of diseases as the main line and take targeted improvement measures for different departments with different characteristics.

参考文献/References:

［1］国家卫生健康委医政司.关于印发公立医院高质量发展评价指标（试行）的通知［EB/OL］.(2022-07-31)［2023-01-03］.http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s3594q/2022 07/3324136282364655baa64f6e84fe0792.shtml. ［2］王振宇. DRG综合绩效评价方法在科室评价中的应用［J］. 中国卫生经济, 2017, 36(10):72-75. ［3］杨岳利, 周营新, 范江荣,等. 创伤骨科两种绩效二次分配方案比较研究［J］. 中国卫生质量管理, 2021, 28(1):82-84. ［4］王怡凡,周 典,姚辰欢,等.基于熵权TOPSIS—灰色关联度分析的临床路径实施效果综合评价［J］.中国医院管理,2021,41(12):64-68. ［5］明星辰,谢多双,杨 骁,等.基于DRGs的临床专科绩效熵权TOPSIS评价［J］.中国卫生质量管理,2016,23(Z1):35-37. ［6］胡靖琛,詹丽英,李 煜,等.利用DRG和加权秩和比法评价麻醉医师绩效［J］.中国卫生质量管理,2021,28(7):55-57,76. ［7］陈诗琪,李彦霖,罗 敏,等. 基于熵权TOPSIS-RSR法的四川省三级妇幼保健机构中医服务能力综合评价［J］. 中国卫生质量管理, 2022, 29(11):39-44. ［8］黄 倩,闫雅洁,蒲丽冰,等.基于TOPSIS法与RSR法结合的湖北省基本公共卫生服务质量综合评价［J］.现代预防医学,2022,49(3):447-450,455. ［9］许 昌,钟婉婷,陶红兵,等.两种DRGs指标体系的绩效评价效果比较研究［J］.中国卫生质量管理,2022,29(2):19-25. ［10］牛文奇,李文瑾,丁 磊,等.两种DRG绩效评价方法的应用效果比较研究［J］.中国卫生质量管理,2021,28(12):36-40. ［11］田凤调.RSR法中的分档问题［J］.中国卫生统计,1993，10(2):26-28. ［12］刘 军,郜 佳,杨 翠,等.基于加权非整秩次RSR法和DRGs指标的住院医疗服务综合评价实证研究［J］.现代预防医学,2020,47(13):2371-2375. ［13］赵钦风,王文萍,谢 辉,等.基于DRG的山东省县级综合医院住院服务评价研究［J］.中国医院管理,2021,41(2):30-32，38.

相似文献/References:

[1]谢秋娟 仲立儒.应用综合评价方法分析某院医疗质量水平[J].中国卫生质量管理,2016,23(05):026.[doi:10.13912/j.cnki.chqm.2016.23.5.08]
[2]赵娜 张艳丽 王圣友 陈晓红 王吉善 朱晓瑞 王文凤 刘立飞 王彤璐 谷水.基于熵权改良TOPSIS法对医院现场评价结果分析[J].中国卫生质量管理,2018,25(06):104.[doi:10.13912/j.cnki.chqm.2018.25.6.30]
[3]牛文奇李文瑾丁磊蒋光峰.两种DRG绩效评价方法的应用效果比较研究[J].中国卫生质量管理,2021,28(12):036.[doi:10.13912/j.cnki.chqm.2021.28.12.11 ]
　NIU Wenqi,LI Wenjin,DING Lei.Comparative Study on the Application Effect of Two Diagnosis Related Group Performance Evaluation Methods[J].Chinese Health Quality Management,2021,28(07):036.[doi:10.13912/j.cnki.chqm.2021.28.12.11 ]

更新日期/Last Update: 2023-07-15