PDCA循环降低非计划再次手术发生率的效果评价

目的 探讨降低非计划再次手术发生率的有效方式,为医疗质量改进提供参考。方法 运用PDCA循环原理,对非计划再次手术的发生情况进行分析,找出影响非计划再次手术的主要原因,制定针对性措施实施过程改进。结果 实施改进措施后,非计划再次手术发生率由1.2%降低至0.9%。结论 PDCA循环的应用降低了非计划再次手术发生率,有利于提高手术质量,以实现医疗质量的持续性改进。     

435例非计划再次手术的科室分布及原因分析

目的 通过对非计划再次手术的发生率、科室来源、发生原因进行统计分析,探讨非计划再次手术的防范措施,提高全院的手术质量。方法 对某三级甲等综合医院2014年度所有手术患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 共回顾性分析62 179份手术患者的资料,其中发生重返手术室的有2411人次,发生非计划再次手术的有435人次,非计划再次手术发生率为6.94‰,非计划再次手术主要发生在男性、40～59岁年龄组患者中,非计划再次手术主要科室来源为神经外科（143例）、心胸外科（39例）及口腔颌面外科（27例）,术后出血/血肿、未达到效果手术再调整、术后漏、切口问题及手术部位感染为非计划再次手术发生的主要原因,占总原因的78.85%。结论 加强围手术期质量管理,严格执行非计划再次手术的上报制度,对非计划再次手术发生率高的重点科室、重点手术进行监管,是降低非计划再次手术发生率的有效措施。     

非计划再次手术关键环节管理与效果分析

目的 探索有效降低非计划再次手术发生率的管理方法。方法 对2012年1月—2016年12月住院并进行手术的患者进行主动监测,加强管理,发现非计划再次手术病例,统计发生率及引发原因。结果 225 944例手术共发生非计划再次手术914例,平均发生率为0.40%且五年呈显著下降趋势。引发原因以手术部位感染、切口裂开、切口疝或愈合不良,术后出血,出现漏或瘘为主,共占73.9%。结论 完善主动监测与报告系统、加强院科两级管理、注重原因分析与改进可有效降低非计划再次手术的发生率。     

肿瘤患者非计划再次手术原因分析及对策

目的 为提高手术质量、保障医疗质量提供管理依据。方法 回顾性分析某三甲肿瘤专科医院2008—2013年442例非计划再次手术病例,对非计划再次手术的发生情况进行分析。结果 肿瘤手术患者非计划再次手术发生率为1.0%,发生的主要原因为术后出血、吻合口瘘、手术切口问题。非计划再次手术的发生与手术难度、手术者专业水平及患者病情因素等因素有关。结论 作为手术质量评价的重要指标,医院应将非计划再次手术监管作为提高质量管理的抓手。     

重点疾病非计划重返住院的影响因素分析

目的 研究某三甲综合医院2012年18类重点疾病非计划重返住院的影响因素。方法 对样本院2012年18类重点疾病7 406例患者进行分析,研究其出院后15天、31天非计划重返住院的原因。 结果 9类疾病33名患者出现了非计划再次入院情况,慢性病和60岁以上老年人更有可能非计划重返住院,患者出院时疾病状态、出院主张、病情加重或病情复发、住院天数等是影响非计划重返住院的主要因素。 结论 要从熟练掌握相关疾病的临床治愈好转标准,加强医患沟通,加强健康宣教,加强出院随访等方面来提高医院的医疗质量。     

基于PDCA循环的非计划再次手术管理方法设计与实现

目的 针对非计划再次手术管理需求设计了一种管理方法。为医院非计划再次手术的管理以及医疗质量改进提供参考。方法 参考国家对非计划再次手术管理的相关规范及标准文件,遵循 PDCA 循环的思想,结合信息技术,最终建立一个“非计划再次手术”专用的管理方法。结果 方法实施前后非计划再次手术的发生率有了显著的下降,发生率从方法实施前（2014年下半年）的1.02%降低到方法实施后（2015年7—12月）的0.71%。结论 方法有效降低了非计划再次手术发生率,符合医疗管理的需求,有利于提升手术质量,以实现医疗质量的持续性改进。

     

北京市某三甲医院31天内非计划性再入院研究

目的 了解北京市某三甲综合性医院住院患者出院31天内非计划再入院的现状及其影响因素。方法 对北京市某三甲综合性医院2008年1月1日—12月31日之间出院后31天内非计划性再入院的患者进行描述性分析，通过t 检验和χ²检验进行单因素分析，选择有统计学意义的危险因素用向后逐步回归法进行非条件Logistic分析。结果 患者性别、患者年龄、出院—再入院的间隔天数、前次入院时入院状况和前次入院疾病是否治愈是31天内非计划性再入院的主要影响因素。结论 患者特征和医院相关因素均与患者出院31天内非计划性再入院相关。     

手术能力考评体系在手术分级管理中的应用

目的 结合手术分级管理要求,初步建立医师手术能力考评体系,通过考评结果了解各临床外系科室的情况。方法 通过文献检索、现场问卷调查及专家咨询等方法,建立以临床操作技能评估（DOPS）为核心的医师手术能力考评体系。该体系包括了DOPS技能评估、非计划再次手术和年内手术量三个方面的考核。运用此体系对医院8个科室129名外科医生进行评估,并对评估结果进行比较。结果 采用t检验提示,外系科室中耳鼻咽喉科、骨科和妇产科高于整体水平（t＝2.42、2.18、2.35,P＝0.03、0.04、0.02,P＜0.05）,胸外科、神经外科低于整体水平（t＝－2.64、-2.63,P＝0.02、0.03,P＜0.05）,眼科、泌尿外科、普外科与整体水平无明显差异（t＝0.83、-1.84、-1.17,P＝0.43、0.86、0.25,P＞0.05）。结论 外科各科室之间的考核结果存在差异,医院需积极关注薄弱科室,根据考核结果强化培训和监督,保证患者医疗安全。

     

DRGs方法在临床亚专科医疗服务绩效评价中的应用

目的 运用疾病诊断相关组指标对研究医院“消化系统大手术”亚专科住院医疗服务绩效进行评价,为医院加强精细化医院管理和学科建设提供数据支持。方法 以“国家版诊断相关组”作为风险调整工具,从能力、效率和安全3个维度对样本医院“消化系统大手术”亚专科住院医疗服务绩效进行评价。结果 2008—2015年,样本医院亚专科总权重逐年增加,2015年亚专科病例数占到了市属医院的50.27%;时间消耗指数0.91,但费用消耗较市属医院平均水平高24%;2015年GB15、GB25疾病组死亡率均为0,GB11、GB23疾病组死亡率低于市属医院平均水平。结论 2008—2015年,样本医院“消化系统大手术”亚专科医疗服务能力稳步提升,在市属医院范围内具有明显优势;但须注意在保持服务效率和安全优势的同时,增加GB11、GB23疾病组病例的收治,并应注意严格控制患者住院费用。     

医院医疗风险预警预控指标研究

目的 筛选医疗风险预警指标,为医院建立医疗风险预警系统提供参考。方法 将某军队三甲医院2010—2015年发生的60例手术纠纷患者作为研究对象,同时选取同时期入院、未发生医疗纠纷的120名手术患者作为对照,从医院信息系统调取患者年龄、住院天数、住院费用等资料,筛选22个医疗风险关键指标,运用χ²检验进行单因素分析,选择有统计学意义的指标进行条件logistic回归分析。结果 χ²检验结果显示,入院方式、住院天数、住院费用、四周内手术次数等16个指标有统计学意义（P<0.05）;logistic回归分析显示,住院天数、四周内手术次数、输血总量、病情危重、手术并发症和出院病情等6个指标是医疗风险的危险因素。结论 所选指标均为可量化、灵敏度高的指标,可以为医院建立医疗风险预警信息系统提供参考。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor