Method for measuring and calculating value points based on medical project technical specifications and price indexes

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of medical management, and discloses a method for measuring and calculating value points based on medical project technical specifications and price indexes. The method comprises the following steps: firstly, collecting technical specification data of medical service items, including technical difficulty, operation complexity and the like, and price index data based on charging standards and change trends of different regions or hospitals; and then a weighted average method is adopted to calculate the value point number, the formula is that the value point number is equal to the product of the technical specification score and the technical weight plus the product of the price index score and the price weight, and the technical weight and the price weight are set according to actual medical scene requirements. And finally, carrying out rationality verification on a calculation result, and carrying out optimization adjustment on model parameters according to a verification result. According to the method, multi-dimensional accurate evaluation is realized, and a scientific basis is provided for medical management decisions. The method has the advantages that multi-dimensional data fusion is achieved, the actual value of a service item is accurately evaluated, and the problems of singleness and hysteresis of traditional assessment are solved.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of medical management, in particular to a method for calculating value points of medical project technical specifications and price indexes. BACKGROUND

[0002] Traditional performance salary accounting methods are mostly based on single dimensions such as outpatient volume, operation cases and other workload indicators or rough quality scores, which cannot meet the needs of refined management. For example, an assessment that focuses only on workload may lead medical staff to prefer simple and repetitive low-tech projects, ignoring high-difficulty high-risk services with higher clinical value; and an assessment that relies solely on charge amount may deviate from the public welfare nature of medical services, exacerbating the problems of drug-dependent medicine and excessive examination.

[0003] The core defect of existing performance assessment methods is the lack of a multi-dimensional comprehensive evaluation system: Technical dimension is missing: core elements such as technical difficulty, operation complexity and equipment and material consumption are not quantified. For example, laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery and traditional open surgery have significant differences in technical investment, but traditional assessment may treat them equally based on the number of operation cases; price dimension is fragmented: the charging standard is not linked to the technical value. The same project has a large difference in charging in different regions and different levels of hospitals; cost and quality are imbalanced: ignoring service costs such as consumable costs and equipment depreciation leads to resource waste and service quality decline. SUMMARY

[0004] To solve the above problems, the present application proposes a method for calculating value points of medical project technical specifications and price indexes through multi-dimensional data fusion to accurately assess the actual value of service projects, solve the single and lagging problems of traditional assessment, and promote the scientific and refined transformation of hospital management.

[0005] To solve the above technical problems, the technical solution proposed by the present application is as follows: a method for calculating value points of medical project technical specifications and price indexes, comprising the following core steps: Step 1: Collect relevant data of medical service projects; Step 2: Clean and standardize the data; Step 3: Use weighted average method or other mathematical models to combine technical specifications and price indexes to calculate the value points of each medical service project.

[0006] Preferably, in step 1, the technical specification data includes technical difficulty, operation complexity and required equipment and material information of the project.

[0007] Preferably, in step 1, the price index data is based on the charging standards and their trends of the project in different regions or hospitals.

[0008] Preferably, in step two, the data preprocessing includes removing outliers and unifying data formats.

[0009] Preferably, in step two, the data preprocessing further includes converting technical specification data into quantitative indicators determined by expert scoring or literature reference.

[0010] Preferably, in step three, the calculation formula of the weighted average method is: value points = (technical specification score x technical weight) + (price index score x price weight).

[0011] Preferably, in step three, the technical weight and the price weight are set according to the actual medical scene requirements.

[0012] Preferably, it further includes step four: verifying the rationality of the calculated value points and optimizing and adjusting the model parameters according to the verification results.

[0013] Compared with the prior art, the present application has the following advantages: Multi-dimensional precise evaluation: breaking the single workload or price orientation, comprehensively reflecting the technical value and market attributes of the service.

[0014] Dynamic adaptability: the price index tracks and changes in the market in real time, avoiding the lag of the evaluation system.

[0015] Management decision support: providing data basis for department performance distribution, doctor title evaluation, equipment procurement decision, etc., and promoting the optimization of medical resources. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0016] Example 1 Performance evaluation of general surgery project 1. Data collection Technical specification data: A project: appendectomy, technical difficulty coefficient 0.8, primary surgery, operation time 45 minutes, requires routine surgical instruments; B project: laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, technical difficulty coefficient 1.2, grade IV surgery, operation time 3.5 hours, requires laparoscope and anastomat; C project: liver transplantation, technical difficulty coefficient 1.5, special surgery, operation time 8 hours, requires extracorporeal circulation machine and immunosuppressant.

[0017] Price index data: Local charge: A project 10,000 yuan, B project 15,000 yuan, C project 20,000 yuan; Price trend in the past three years: the price of surgical operation increases by 2% per year on average.

[0018] Other data: Costs: Consumables cost for Project A: 1500 yuan; Consumables cost for Project B: 8000 yuan; Consumables cost for Project C: 50,000 yuan. Patient satisfaction: Item A: 92 points; Item B: 88 points (longer postoperative recovery period); Item C: 95 points (significantly life-saving).

[0019] 2. Data Preprocessing Cleaning: Two cases of abnormal billing for Project A due to equipment failure were removed from a certain hospital area; Quantitative conversion: The linear relationship between the technical difficulty coefficient and the operation time was confirmed by scoring by 5 surgical experts, with a correlation coefficient R² of 0.89.

[0020] 3. Value point calculation: technical weight 0.6, price weight 0.4. Project A: 0.8 × 0.6 + 1 × 0.4 = 0.72 Project B: 1.2 × 0.6 + 1.5 × 0.4 = 1.32 Project C: 1.5 × 0.6 + 2 × 0.4 = 1.7 4. Result Validation and Application Verification: Compared with the traditional assessment result of 500 yuan per case, the performance points of Project C increased by 260%, which is consistent with the high-risk, high-value attributes assessed by experts; Adjustment: Since the cost of project C accounts for 25% of the total cost, which is higher than that of project A (15%), the cost factor will be included in the model the following year, with an additional cost weight of 0.1. After optimization, the score of project C will be adjusted to 1.62, guiding departments to control the use of high-value consumables.

[0021] Example 2

[0022] Chronic disease management service assessment 1. Data Collection Technical specification data: Project D: Basic follow-up of diabetes: Difficulty level 0.5, routine blood glucose monitoring + medication guidance, time taken per session is 20 minutes; Project E Complication Screening Package: Difficulty level 1.0 includes fundus examination and neuropathy detection, each session takes 60 minutes and requires an ophthalmoscope and nerve conduction detector; Price index data: Fees: Item D: 50 yuan / session; Item E: 150 yuan / session. Regional price differences: The average price for similar services in surrounding districts and counties is 45 yuan and 130 yuan respectively.

[0023] Other data: Costs: Consumables cost for Project D: 5 yuan; Consumables cost for Project E: 30 yuan. Health outcomes: Patients who received Project E had an 18% lower incidence of complications the following year compared to patients who received Project D only.

[0024] 2. Data Preprocessing Cleaning: A unified fee standard is used as the benchmark, and samples with high fees from private institutions are excluded; Quantitative conversion: The service content is broken down into 12 sub-indicators based on the health service standards, and the difficulty coefficient is determined by expert scoring.

[0025] 3. Value point calculation: technical weight 0.4, price weight 0.5, cost weight 0.1. Project D: 0.5 × 0.4 + 50 / 100 × 0.5 + 5 / 50 × 0.1 = 0.2 + 0.25 + 0.01 = 0.46 Project E: 1.0 × 0.4 + 150 / 100 × 0.5 + 30 / 150 × 0.1 = 0.4 + 0.75 + 0.02 = 1.17 4. Result Validation and Application Verification: Under the traditional assessment method of 10 yuan per instance, the performance of project D accounts for 65%, but this model shows that the actual value of project E is 2.5 times that of D, which is consistent with the primary healthcare orientation of prevention. Adjustment: In accordance with cost control requirements, the price weight will be reduced to 0.4 the following year, a new health outcomes weight of 0.2 will be added, and the E project points will be increased to 1.32 to incentivize medical staff to strengthen complication screening.

[0026] Example 3

[0027] Value assessment of rehabilitation therapy programs 1. Data Collection Technical specification data: Project F: Basic acupuncture: Difficulty level 0.6, basic acupoint operation, single session duration 30 minutes; Project G: Neurorehabilitation Robot Training: Difficulty level 1.8, requires AI algorithm debugging + dynamic balance monitoring, single session duration 45 minutes, requires imported rehabilitation robot equipment depreciation cost of 200 yuan / session; Price index data: Rehabilitation fees: F program 80 yuan / session, G program 500 yuan / session; Price trend: The price of intelligent rehabilitation equipment services has decreased by 5% annually over the past two years.

[0028] Other data: Patient functional improvement rate: After 3 months of treatment for item G, the Barthel Index improved by 25 points, and item F improved by 8 points; Equipment utilization rate: The rehabilitation robot is used an average of 8 times per day, with a maximum of 12 times per day.

[0029] 2. Data Preprocessing Cleaning: Excluding abnormal efficacy data caused by individual patient differences; Quantitative conversion: Through meta-analysis of rehabilitation medicine literature, it was determined that the technical difficulty coefficient of neurorehabilitation robot training is 3 times higher than that of traditional acupuncture.

[0030] 3. Value point calculation: technical weight 0.7, price weight 0.3, efficacy weight 0.1. Project F: 0.6 × 0.7 + 80 / 100 × 0.3 + 8 / 10 × 0.1 = 0.42 + 0.24 + 0.08 = 0.74 Project G: 1.8 × 0.7 + 500 / 100 × 0.3 + 25 / 10 × 0.1 = 1.26 + 1.5 + 0.25 = 3.01 4. Result Validation and Application Verification: Under the traditional performance evaluation method of time × 2 yuan / minute, the performance of a single case of Project G is 90 yuan. This model shows that its value points are 4 times that of Project F, which is consistent with high technology investment + significant efficacy. Adjustment: To address the issue of insufficient equipment utilization, the equipment utilization rate will be included in the model weight of 0.1 for the following year. If the utilization rate of Project G increases to 10 times / day, its points can be increased by 0.3 to guide departments to optimize resource allocation.

[0031] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention, but the scope of protection of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any equivalent substitutions or modifications made by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in the present invention, based on the technical solution and inventive concept of the present invention, should be covered within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for calculating value points based on technical specifications and price indices for medical projects, characterized in that, The core steps include the following: Step 1: Collect relevant data on medical service items; Step 2: Clean and standardize the data; Step 3: Using a weighted average method or other mathematical models, combine technical specifications and price indices to calculate the value points for each medical service item.

2. The method for calculating value points based on technical specifications and price indices for medical projects according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step one, the technical specification data includes the project's technical difficulty, operational complexity, and information on the required equipment and materials.

3. The method for calculating value points based on technical specifications and price indices for medical projects according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step one, the price index data is based on the project's charging standards and trends in different regions or hospitals.

4. The method for calculating value points based on technical specifications and price indices for medical projects according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step two, the data preprocessing includes operations such as removing outliers and standardizing the data format.

5. The method for calculating value points based on technical specifications and price indices for medical projects according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step two, the data preprocessing also includes converting technical specification data into quantitative indicators, which are determined through expert scoring or literature reference.

6. The method for calculating value points based on technical specifications and price indices for medical projects according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step three, the calculation formula for the weighted average method is as follows: Value points = (Technical specification score × Technical weight) + (Price index score × Price weight).

7. The method for calculating value points based on technical specifications and price indices for medical projects according to claim 6, characterized in that: In step three, the technology weight and price weight are set according to the actual medical scenario requirements.

8. The method for calculating value points based on technical specifications and price indices for medical projects according to claim 1, characterized in that: It also includes step four: verifying the rationality of the calculated value points and optimizing and adjusting the model parameters based on the verification results.