Hospital infection management full-time staff core ability evaluation method and device and storage medium

Abstract

The invention discloses a hospital infection management full-time staff core ability evaluation method and device and a storage medium, and a core ability evaluation final model used in the method is established according to academic information and industry information, can track the progress of infection control knowledge and technology to dynamically update, adapts to rapidly developed medical environments and technologies, and improves the efficiency of core ability evaluation. The method can accord with functional characteristics of a hospital infection management department of a medical institution, and objective quantitative evaluation is carried out on the core capability; the final core capability evaluation model is subjected to performance test and structure optimization, so that core capability evaluation can be carried out based on data driving in combination with a data analysis technology; different to-be-evaluated hospital infection management full-time personnel use the same final core capability evaluation model for evaluation, the consistency and stability of evaluation standards can be kept, and core capability evaluation results of different medical institutions and different regions have comparability. The method is widely applied to the technical field of information.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of information technology, and in particular to a core competence evaluation method, device and storage medium for full-time hospital infection management personnel. Background Art

[0002] Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) refers to infections caused by factors such as hospital environment, medical operations or equipment while patients are receiving medical care. These infections not only pose a serious threat to patients' health, but may also lead to additional medical costs and hospital stays. Hospital infection management includes the development and updating of infection control policies and procedures, monitoring and analysis of hospital infection data, implementation of infection control measures (such as hand hygiene, environmental cleaning and disinfection, etc.), and infection control training and education. Hospital infection management can effectively reduce the occurrence of hospital infection incidents and reduce the impact of hospital infection incidents.

[0003] Hospital infection management is a key area for improving medical quality and ensuring patient safety. Due to the importance of hospital infection management, it is necessary to set up full-time hospital infection management personnel to carry out hospital infection management work. Full-time hospital infection management personnel are mainly responsible for formulating and implementing infection control strategies, supervising infection control practices, conducting infection risk assessments and conducting training and education, evaluating and improving hospital infection management processes, etc. Full-time hospital infection management personnel need to have professional knowledge and skills to effectively identify and manage infection risks and ensure the implementation and continuous improvement of infection control measures. Therefore, the professional core capabilities of hospital infection management personnel directly affect the function of the infection management department and the prevention and control of hospital infections.

[0004] The appointment of full-time hospital infection management personnel requires certain professional capabilities. However, the current professional ability evaluation of hospital infection management personnel lacks systematic, quantitative, and stable standards, making it difficult to track the rapidly updated medical environment and technology, and unable to provide effective support for the selection of full-time hospital infection management personnel. Summary of the invention

[0005] In view of the technical problems such as the lack of systematic, quantitative and stable standards for the professional ability evaluation of full-time hospital infection management personnel, the purpose of the present invention is to provide a core ability evaluation method, device and storage medium for full-time hospital infection management personnel.

[0006] On the one hand, an embodiment of the present invention includes a method for evaluating the core competence of full-time hospital infection management personnel, and the method for evaluating the core competence of full-time hospital infection management personnel includes the following steps:

[0007] Obtain academic and industry information on hospital infection management;

[0008] Establishing an initial model for core competence evaluation based on the academic information and the industry information; the initial model for core competence evaluation includes multiple core competence evaluation indicators for hospital infection management;

[0009] Performing performance testing and structural optimization on the initial model of core competence evaluation to obtain a final model of core competence evaluation; the final model of core competence evaluation includes some or all of the core competence evaluation indicators in the initial model of core competence evaluation;

[0010] The final core competency evaluation model is used to obtain the core competency scores of the hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated.

[0011] Furthermore, the acquisition of academic information and industry information on hospital infection management includes:

[0012] Set search keywords related to hospital infection management;

[0013] Using the search keywords to search the academic database, obtaining literature information of hospital infection management type as the academic information;

[0014] Conduct interviews with practitioners in the work organizations of the hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated, and obtain interview information as the industry information.

[0015] Furthermore, the establishment of an initial model for core competency evaluation based on the academic information and the industry information includes:

[0016] Extracting features from the document information to obtain at least one first core capability evaluation indicator;

[0017] Extracting features from the interview information to obtain at least one second core competency evaluation indicator;

[0018] Determining at least one third core capability evaluation indicator according to each of the first core capability evaluation indicators and each of the second core capability evaluation indicators;

[0019] The initial model for evaluating the core competence is constructed based on the third core competence evaluation indicators.

[0020] Furthermore, the performance test and structure optimization of the initial core competency evaluation model to obtain the final core competency evaluation model includes:

[0021] Conduct a survey on the target population based on the initial model for evaluating core competencies and obtain survey data;

[0022] Conducting reliability analysis on the initial model of core competency evaluation based on the survey data;

[0023] According to the result of the reliability analysis, the core competence evaluation indicators in the initial core competence evaluation model are screened, and the first core competence evaluation optimization model is obtained according to the screened core competence evaluation indicators;

[0024] Conducting exploratory factor analysis on the first optimization model of core competency evaluation;

[0025] According to the result of exploratory factor analysis, each of the core competence evaluation indicators in the first core competence evaluation optimization model is screened, and according to the screened core competence evaluation indicators, a second core competence evaluation optimization model is obtained;

[0026] Conducting confirmatory factor analysis on the second optimization model of core competency evaluation;

[0027] According to the result of confirmatory factor analysis, each of the core competence evaluation indicators in the second optimization model of the core competence evaluation is screened, and according to the screened core competence evaluation indicators, the final model of the core competence evaluation is obtained.

[0028] Furthermore, the core competency evaluation method for hospital infection management professionals also includes:

[0029] Before the performance test and structure optimization of the initial core competency evaluation model are performed, multiple rounds of expert consultation optimization are performed on the initial core competency evaluation model.

[0030] Furthermore, the core competency evaluation method for hospital infection management professionals also includes:

[0031] Based on the core competency score, job recommendation information for the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated is generated.

[0032] Furthermore, generating the job recommendation information of the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated based on the core competency score includes:

[0033] Set score thresholds;

[0034] The job recommendation information is generated according to the size relationship between the core competency score and the score threshold.

[0035] Furthermore, generating the job recommendation information of the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated based on the core competency score includes:

[0036] Acquire multiple core competency scores; each core competency score is obtained by using the same core competency evaluation final model to evaluate the core competency of the same hospital infection management professional to be evaluated at multiple different periods;

[0037] Set target scores;

[0038] Adjusting the weight of each of the core competence evaluation indicators in the final core competence evaluation model;

[0039] According to the final core competency evaluation model after weight adjustment, adjusting each core competency score respectively to obtain a plurality of adjusted scores;

[0040] Setting a constraint condition; wherein the constraint condition is that the average deviation of each of the adjusted scores relative to the target score is the smallest;

[0041] Obtaining the weight adjustment value of each of the core capability evaluation indicators when the constraint conditions are met;

[0042] The job recommendation information is generated according to each of the weight adjustment values.

[0043] On the other hand, an embodiment of the present invention also includes a computer device, including a memory and a processor, the memory is used to store at least one program, and the processor is used to load at least one program to execute the core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel in the embodiment.

[0044] On the other hand, an embodiment of the present invention also includes a computer-readable storage medium, which stores a program executable by a processor. When the program executable by the processor is executed by the processor, it is used to execute the core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel in the embodiment.

[0045] The beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: through the core competency evaluation method for hospital infection management professionals in the embodiment, since the final core competency evaluation model is established based on academic information, it is possible to track the progress of infection control knowledge and technology and be dynamically updated, thereby adapting to the rapidly developing medical environment and technology; since the initial core competency evaluation model is established based on industry information, it is possible to conform to the functional characteristics of the hospital infection management department of the medical institution, and to conduct an objective quantitative evaluation of the core competencies of the hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated; since the final core competency evaluation model has undergone performance testing and structural optimization, it is possible to combine data analysis technology and conduct core competency evaluation based on data-driven; using the same final core competency evaluation model to evaluate different hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated can maintain the consistency and stability of the evaluation criteria, making the core competency evaluation results of different medical institutions and different regions comparable. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0046] Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the steps of the core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel in the embodiment;

[0047] Figure 2 It is a flow chart of the core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel in the embodiment;

[0048] Figure 3 It is a schematic diagram of the structure of the final model of core competency evaluation in the embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0049] Terminology explanation:

[0050] Core competence: It is a unique capability established in the development process of resource accumulation of management departments. It is the most important strategic asset, which is unique, valuable, difficult to imitate, extensible, dynamic and comprehensive. The core competence in this project is a key capability unique to the field of hospital infection management, involving multiple dimensions such as hospital management theory, monitoring, leadership and management, and risk identification and analysis.

[0051] Model: A model is a simplified description and abstract expression of an actual object, system or problem, usually composed of symbols, formulas, charts, images and the like. Models have different definitions and expressions in different fields, but their core essence is the simplification and abstraction of the real world. The model in the embodiment refers to a scientific evaluation index system that has been screened and optimized for the purpose of evaluating the core competency level of hospital infection management personnel.

[0052] Professional structure optimization: usually refers to the process of analyzing and improving the structure in a specific field to improve its performance, efficiency or function. In the field of hospital infection management where this technical project is applied, professional structure optimization can reasonably divide personnel responsibilities, flexibly organize and arrange internal structures, clarify the direction of personnel development and promotion and the development strategy of the management department, and improve the efficiency of department management and operation. Through professional structure optimization, the department's own structure is continuously adjusted to achieve long-term, efficient and stable development of the management department.

[0053] In this embodiment, refer to Figure 1 The core competency evaluation method for hospital infection management professionals includes the following steps:

[0054] S1. Obtain academic and industry information on hospital infection management;

[0055] S2. Establish an initial model for core competency evaluation based on academic and industry information;

[0056] S3. Perform performance test and structural optimization on the initial model of core competence evaluation to obtain the final model of core competence evaluation;

[0057] S4. Use the final core competency evaluation model to obtain the core competency scores of the hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated.

[0058] Each step in the core competency evaluation method for hospital infection management professionals, including steps S1-S4, can be executed by a computer. The process of steps S1-S4 is as follows: Figure 2 shown.

[0059] In step S1, a computer may search the Internet or a database to obtain academic information and industry information. The academic information is information on academic research related to hospital infection management, such as information generated by academic research on the specific content, implementation methods, effect analysis, and competency evaluation of hospital infection management; the industry information is information on management theories, execution processes, execution experiences, and improvement strategies generated by hospitals and other medical institutions during actual operations, especially when implementing actual work in hospital infection management.

[0060] In step S2, an initial core competency evaluation model is established based on the academic information and industry information obtained in step S1. The initial core competency evaluation model includes multiple core competency evaluation indicators, each of which measures the degree of compliance of the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated from one aspect of hospital infection management work, so as to score the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated in this aspect, that is, the entire initial core competency evaluation model can score the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated from multiple aspects of hospital infection management work.

[0061] In step S3, the initial model of core competency evaluation established in step S2 is subjected to performance inspection and structural optimization, thereby trimming the initial model of core competency evaluation. Among them, the performance inspection can find out whether each core competency evaluation indicator in the initial model of core competency evaluation meets the use requirements of core competency evaluation, and the structural optimization can eliminate the core competency evaluation indicators that cannot meet the use requirements, and retain the core competency evaluation indicators that can meet the use requirements. The retained core competency evaluation indicators constitute the final model of core competency evaluation. Therefore, it may be that a part of the core competency evaluation indicators in the initial model of core competency evaluation are retained to form the final model of core competency evaluation, or it may be that all the core competency evaluation indicators in the initial model of core competency evaluation are retained to form the final model of core competency evaluation.

[0062] In step S4, for a full-time hospital infection management specialist to be evaluated (assuming his name is A), the core competency evaluation indicators in the final core competency evaluation model obtained in step S3 are used to determine one by one whether the full-time hospital infection management specialist A to be evaluated meets these core competency evaluation indicators.

[0063] In this embodiment, each core competency evaluation indicator can be expressed in the form of "whether it satisfies...". In this way, when executing step S4, the actual situation of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated can be written into a corresponding resume text, and then the resume text can be recognized by a computer semantic recognition algorithm. According to the recognized features, it is determined whether the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated meets the conditions represented by the content of each core competency evaluation indicator, and points are assigned according to the compliance situation; for example, the Likert-7 scoring method can be used to assign points to the core competency evaluation indicator V-2 of the hospital infection management professional A:

[0064] If it is judged that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated "fully meets" the conditions indicated by the core competency evaluation indicator V-2, then 7 points are assigned accordingly to the core competency evaluation indicator V-2;

[0065] If it is judged that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated "satisfies" the conditions indicated by the core competency evaluation indicator V-2, then 6 points are assigned accordingly to the core competency evaluation indicator V-2;

[0066] If it is judged that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated "relatively meets" the conditions represented by the core competency evaluation indicator V-2, then 5 points are assigned accordingly to the core competency evaluation indicator V-2;

[0067] If it is judged that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated "generally meets" the conditions indicated by the core competency evaluation indicator V-2, then 4 points are assigned accordingly to the core competency evaluation indicator V-2;

[0068] If it is judged that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated "relatively does not meet" the conditions represented by the core competency evaluation indicator V-2, then 3 points are assigned accordingly to the core competency evaluation indicator V-2;

[0069] If it is judged that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated "does not meet" the conditions indicated by the core competency evaluation indicator V-2, then 2 points are assigned accordingly to the core competency evaluation indicator V-2;

[0070] If it is judged that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated "completely does not meet" the conditions represented by the core competency evaluation indicator V-2, then 1 point is assigned accordingly to the core competency evaluation indicator V-2.

[0071] For other core competency evaluation indicators such as core competency evaluation indicator V-3, the above-mentioned Likert-7 scoring method can also be used to assign points.

[0072] When assigning points according to each core competency evaluation indicator, in addition to using the original scores of 1 to 7 points mentioned above, you can also set corresponding initial weights for each core competency evaluation indicator based on the importance of each core competency evaluation indicator. When assigning points according to each core competency evaluation indicator, the corresponding score for each core competency evaluation indicator is the product of its original score and the initial weight.

[0073] In step S4, the computer adds up the scores obtained by the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated according to all the core competency evaluation indicators in the final core competency evaluation model, and the sum is used as the core competency score of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated.

[0074] In this embodiment, by executing steps S1-S4, since the final model of core competency evaluation is established based on academic information, it can track the progress of infection control knowledge and technology and be dynamically updated to adapt to the rapidly developing medical environment and technology; since the initial model of core competency evaluation is established based on industry information, it can fit the functional characteristics of the hospital infection management department of the medical institution and conduct an objective quantitative evaluation of the core competencies of the hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated; since the final model of core competency evaluation has undergone performance testing and structural optimization, it can be combined with data analysis technology to conduct core competency evaluation based on data-driven; using the same final model of core competency evaluation to evaluate different hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated can maintain the consistency and stability of the evaluation standards, making the core competency evaluation results of different medical institutions and different regions comparable.

[0075] In this embodiment, when executing step S1, that is, the step of obtaining academic information and industry information on hospital infection management, the following steps may be specifically performed:

[0076] S101. Set search keywords related to hospital infection management;

[0077] S102. Use the search keywords to search the academic database to obtain literature information of hospital infection management type as academic information;

[0078] S103. Interview practitioners in the work organizations where the hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated are located and obtain the interview information as industry information.

[0079] Steps S101-S102 are the process of literature review. In step S101, search keywords related to hospital infection management such as "hospital infection", "nosocomial infection", "infection prevention", "capacity", "competence", "competence model" and "competence of practitioners" can be set. In step S102, the keywords set in step S101 can be searched in academic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), etc., to obtain literature information such as guidelines or technical documents on infection and core competencies of hospital health professionals in various countries as academic information to be obtained in step S1.

[0080] In step S103, focus group interviews are organized with practitioners such as doctors, nurses and hospital infection management personnel in hospitals and other work institutions to conduct interviews on "hospital infection management theory", "implementation of prevention and control measures", "management strategy", "risk assessment" and "support and development" to obtain interview information as the industry information to be obtained in step S1.

[0081] In this embodiment, when executing step S2, that is, the step of establishing an initial model for core competency evaluation based on academic information and industry information, the following steps may be specifically performed:

[0082] S201. Extract features from document information to obtain at least one first core competency evaluation indicator;

[0083] S202. Extract features from the interview information to obtain at least one second core competency evaluation indicator;

[0084] S203. Determine at least one third core capability evaluation indicator based on each first core capability evaluation indicator and each second core capability evaluation indicator;

[0085] S204. Using the third core competency evaluation indicators, construct an initial core competency evaluation model.

[0086] In step S201, semantic features can be extracted from the document information obtained in step S1, and the corresponding first core competency evaluation indicators can be generated according to the importance of the semantic features and the frequency and importance of the mentioned content. For example, if the document information includes semantic features such as "microorganisms", "epidemiology", and "transportation and storage", the first core competency evaluation indicators such as "recognizing microorganisms with epidemiological significance that require immediate review and investigation" and "familiar with the standardized collection, transportation, and storage methods of clinical microbiological specimens" can be generated in step S201.

[0087] In step S202, similar to step S201, semantic features can be extracted from the interview information obtained in step S1, and corresponding second core competency evaluation indicators can be generated according to the importance of the semantic features and the frequency and importance of the mentioned content. For example, if the interview information includes semantic features such as "report", "system", and "department", the second core competency evaluation indicators such as "able to prepare and feedback reports", "familiar with hospital infection management methods and basic systems for infection prevention and control in medical institutions" can be generated in step S202.

[0088] In step S203, at least one third core capability evaluation indicator is determined based on each first core capability evaluation indicator obtained in step S201 and each second core capability evaluation indicator obtained in step S202. Specifically, operations such as intersection or union can be performed on the set of each first core capability evaluation indicator and the set of each second core capability evaluation indicator, and the obtained result includes multiple core capability evaluation indicators, namely, the third core capability evaluation indicator. In step S204, the initial core capability evaluation model is obtained by constructing each third core capability evaluation indicator, that is, the initial core capability evaluation model includes multiple third core capability evaluation indicators.

[0089] In this embodiment, by executing steps S201-S204, an initial core competency evaluation model can be generated based on the literature information and the interview information, so that the initial core competency evaluation model includes a third core competency evaluation indicator related to the literature information and / or the interview information.

[0090] In this embodiment, after executing step S2 and before executing step S3, the initial model of core competency evaluation may be optimized through multiple rounds of expert consultation.

[0091] Specifically, expert consultation optimization includes the following processes:

[0092] Step 1: The first round of Delphi expert consultation

[0093] Considering that the number of experts in Delphi theory should be 7-8, in this embodiment, 15 experts can be invited to form an expert group. The inclusion criteria for experts are: (i) having rich experience in hospital infection management; (ii) being familiar with hospital infection prevention and control policies; (iii) being willing to participate in this study. Each expert uses the Linkert-7 scale (from 7 = very important to 1 = least important) to score the importance of each third core competency evaluation indicator. After the first round of scoring, the third core competency evaluation indicators with an average score <4.00 are excluded.

[0094] Step 2: Second round of Delphi expert consultation

[0095] The second round of expert consultation was continued until the experts reached a consensus on all the third core competency evaluation indicators, and the statistical characteristics of each third core competency evaluation indicator met the following criteria: median (MD) ≥ 6 (indicating that the indicator is "very important"); interquartile range (IQR) ≤ 1 and standard deviation (SD) < 1 (indicating that the experts have a unified opinion on the score of the indicator). In this embodiment, the consultation questionnaires were sent and tracked via email. Both rounds of consultation used the familiarity coefficient (Cs), judgment coefficient (Ca) and authority coefficient (Cr) to evaluate the authority of the experts. These values ​​greater than 0.7 indicate that the experts have good authority.

[0096] Generally, after the expert consultation optimization is performed, a portion of the third core competency evaluation indicators will be removed from the initial core competency evaluation model, and the third core competency evaluation indicators that are retained are core competency evaluation indicators recognized by authoritative experts and have higher credibility. The initial core competency evaluation model after expert consultation optimization will then be executed in step S3.

[0097] In this embodiment, when executing step S3, that is, performing performance inspection and structural optimization on the initial model of core competence evaluation to obtain the final model of core competence evaluation, the following steps may be specifically performed:

[0098] S301. According to the initial model of core competency evaluation, survey the target population and obtain survey data;

[0099] S302. Conduct reliability analysis on the initial model of core competency evaluation based on survey data;

[0100] S303. According to the result of the reliability analysis, the core competence evaluation indicators in the initial model of the core competence evaluation are screened, and the first optimization model of the core competence evaluation is obtained according to the screened core competence evaluation indicators;

[0101] S304. Conduct exploratory factor analysis on the first optimization model of core competency evaluation;

[0102] S305. According to the results of the exploratory factor analysis, the core competence evaluation indicators in the first optimization model of the core competence evaluation are screened, and the second optimization model of the core competence evaluation is obtained according to the screened core competence evaluation indicators;

[0103] S306. Conduct confirmatory factor analysis on the second optimization model of core competency evaluation;

[0104] S307. Based on the results of confirmatory factor analysis, the core competence evaluation indicators in the second optimization model of core competence evaluation are screened, and the final model of core competence evaluation is obtained based on the screened core competence evaluation indicators.

[0105] In step S301, full-time hospital infection management personnel can be selected as the target population in medical institutions at all levels within a certain administrative region (such as a province or a city), and an initial core competency evaluation scale can be issued for the target population. The content of the initial core competency evaluation scale can be the same as the initial model of core competency evaluation. The sample size in the initial core competency evaluation scale is 10-15 times the number of indicators of the third core competency evaluation index after expert consultation optimization, and the non-response rate is 10%. For example, if the number of indicators of the third core competency evaluation index is 50, the sample size of the evaluation scale can be greater than 550. The target population fills in the evaluation scale according to their actual situation. For example, for the third core competency evaluation index such as "recognizing microorganisms with epidemiological significance that need to be reviewed and investigated immediately", Likert-7 points are used to score according to personal actual situation. The evaluation scale is recovered to obtain survey data. The survey data represents the specific values ​​of 1-7 points filled in by each person in the target population for the third core competency evaluation index. Data cleaning is performed on the survey data to remove missing values, outliers and duplicate data to ensure data accuracy. Convert data into a unified format and perform necessary encoding and normalization operations.

[0106] In step S302, the survey data of the target population is used to perform reliability and validity analysis of the scale, and the scale indicators and structure are optimized. Reliability refers to the degree to which the results are consistent when the same method is used to repeatedly measure the same object. The most commonly used Cronbach's reliability coefficient (Cronbach's α) is used to test the reliability of the scale. A value greater than 0.7 indicates that the reliability of the scale is acceptable. The KMO value and Bartlett test are used to evaluate the applicability of factor analysis. The KMO value is used to evaluate the degree to which the data is suitable for factor analysis. KMO should be greater than 0.7. The higher the value, the stronger the correlation between the variables, and the more suitable it is for factor analysis. The Bartlett test is used to test whether the correlation matrix is ​​a unit matrix (that is, the variables are not correlated); when P<0.05, it indicates that there is a good correlation between the variables and the data is suitable for further factor analysis.

[0107] In step S303, the third core competence evaluation indicators that meet the Cronbach reliability coefficient greater than 0.7, KMO greater than 0.7 and P<0.05 determined according to the survey data can be retained, and the third core competence evaluation indicators that do not meet such conditions can be eliminated. The third core competence evaluation indicators that are not eliminated but retained constitute the first optimization model of core competence evaluation.

[0108] In step S304, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is performed on the first optimized model for core competence evaluation obtained in step S303. Construct validity represents the accuracy of the scale structure, referring to the degree to which a measurement tool can accurately measure the constructs or variables defined theoretically. Using EFA can explore the potential factor structure in the data without a pre-set model. Specifically, the operation process of step S304 includes: extracting common factors from the first optimized model for core competence evaluation using principal component analysis (PCA), and performing matrix rotation using the varimax method; using MPlus software to perform a 1-6 factor dimensionality reduction exploratory analysis again to verify the EFA clustering results.

[0109] By executing step S304, the factor loadings of each third core competence evaluation index in the first optimized model for core competence evaluation can be obtained as the result of exploratory factor analysis.

[0110] Since the third core competence evaluation indexes with factor loadings less than 0.5 are considered to have poor explanatory power for the dimension, in step S305, the third core competence evaluation indexes with factor loadings less than 0.5 in the first optimized model for core competence evaluation can be removed, and the third core competence evaluation indexes with factor loadings greater than or equal to 0.5 are retained. Each of the third core competence evaluation indexes that are not removed but retained constitutes the second optimized model for core competence evaluation.

[0111] In step S306, confirmatory factor analysis is performed on the second optimized model for core competence evaluation obtained in step S305. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is mainly used to verify whether a pre-designed model, the number of factors or the scale structure matches the actual data. Specifically, in step S306, according to the number of factors after dimensionality reduction through the EFA steps in the previous steps S304 - S305 (the number of third core competence evaluation indexes included in the second optimized model for core competence evaluation), the model hypothesis is determined, and the factor structure and the relationship between the factors and the index variables are constructed.

[0112] Specifically, in step S306, the sample survey data can be imported into the second optimized model for core competence evaluation for model fitting test. The fitness of each third core competence evaluation index in the second optimized model for core competence evaluation is tested through various fitness indexes (such as RMSEA, NFI, CFI, TLI,), and it is verified that the data conforms to the theoretical model. By executing step S306, parameters such as RMSEA, NFL, TLI, CFI, and IFI of each third core competence evaluation index in the second optimized model for core competence evaluation can be obtained. Among them, RMSEA ≤ 0.05 indicates close fitting, 0.05 < RMSEA < 0.08 indicates acceptable fitting, and NFL > 0.9, TLI > 0.9, CFI > 0.9, and IFI > 0.9 indicate good fitting.

[0113] Since the structural model that can fit the data well can be used for the core competency evaluation index system of infection control professionals used and measured by hospital infection management departments, in step S307, the third core competency evaluation index that satisfies the conditions of RMSEA≤0.05, NFL>0.9, TLI>0.9, CFI>0.9 and IFI>0.9 in the second optimization model of core competency evaluation can be retained, and the third core competency evaluation index that cannot simultaneously meet these conditions can be eliminated. The third core competency evaluation indexes that are not eliminated but retained constitute the final model of core competency evaluation.

[0114] In this embodiment, the content of the final model of core competency evaluation is shown in Table 1.

[0115] Table 1 Final model of core competence evaluation (core competence evaluation index system for infection control professionals)

[0116]

[0117]

[0118]

[0119] In this embodiment, by executing steps S301-S307, a final core competency evaluation model as shown in Table 1 can be obtained. The structure of the final core competency evaluation model is as follows: Figure 3 See Figure 3 , IPCCM represents the final core competency evaluation model, which includes five factor dimensions: hospital infection knowledge (HIK), professional supervision ability (PSA), data monitoring ability (DS), leadership and control ability (MC), and scientific research ability (SRS). Each dimension contains a different number of core competency evaluation indicators (represented by V1-V50, i.e., the third core competency evaluation indicator retained after multiple screenings in steps S301-S307), and the elliptical nodes after the core competency evaluation indicators represent variable errors (without actual measurement significance).

[0120] Referring to Table 1, each core competency evaluation indicator in the final core competency evaluation model has corresponding content. For example, the content of the core competency evaluation indicator numbered V-2 is "able to identify colonization, infection or contamination". When executing step S4, it is possible to determine whether the hospital infection management specialist A to be evaluated meets the description of "able to identify colonization, infection or contamination" based on the resume information of the hospital infection management specialist A to be evaluated. According to the degree of compliance ranging from "fully satisfied" to "completely unsatisfied", the core competency evaluation indicator numbered V-2 is scored accordingly (for example, 1-7 points, which can also be multiplied by the corresponding initial weight); finally, the scores of all core competency evaluation indicators are added together to obtain the core competency score of the hospital infection management specialist A to be evaluated.

[0121] In this embodiment, on the basis of executing steps S1-S4, the following steps may also be executed:

[0122] S5. Generate job recommendation information for hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated based on core competency scores.

[0123] In step S5, since the core competency score can indicate the core competency of the hospital infection management specialist to be evaluated in hospital infection management, job suggestion information can be generated based on the core competency score, and the job arrangement suggestions for the hospital infection management specialist to be evaluated are indicated through the job suggestion information.

[0124] Specifically, when executing step S5, that is, generating job recommendation information of hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated based on the core competency scores, the following steps may be specifically performed:

[0125] S501A. Set score threshold;

[0126] S502A. Generate job recommendation information based on the relationship between the core competency score and the score threshold.

[0127] Steps S501A-S502A are the first execution mode of step S5.

[0128] Taking the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated as an example, in step S501A, a single score threshold can be set, so that in step S502A, the relationship between the core competency score of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated and the score threshold can be determined; if the core competency score of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated is greater than or equal to the score threshold, it means that the core competency of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated is high enough, and job recommendation information can be generated indicating that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated is competent for hospital infection management work and it is recommended that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated engage in hospital infection management work; conversely, if the core competency score of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated is less than the score threshold, then job recommendation information is generated indicating that the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated is not competent for hospital infection management work, it is recommended to avoid the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated from engaging in hospital infection management work, or to transfer the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated from the hospital infection management job.

[0129] In step S501A, multiple score thresholds can also be set to form multiple score intervals. In step S502A, the core competency score interval of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated is determined, so as to grade the core competency of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated, make more detailed job arrangements based on the grading results, and generate job recommendation information.

[0130] Specifically, when executing step S5, that is, generating job recommendation information of hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated based on the core competency scores, the following steps may be specifically performed:

[0131] S501B. Obtain multiple core competency scores;

[0132] S502B. Set target score;

[0133] S503B. Adjust the weights of each core competency evaluation indicator in the final core competency evaluation model;

[0134] S504B. According to the final core competency evaluation model after adjusting the weights, the scores of each core competency are adjusted to obtain multiple adjusted scores;

[0135] S505B. Set constraints; wherein the constraint is that the deviation of each adjustment score relative to the target score is the smallest on average;

[0136] S506B. Obtain the weight adjustment value of each core capability evaluation indicator when the constraint conditions are met;

[0137] S507B. Generate job recommendation information based on each weight adjustment value.

[0138] Steps S501B-S507B are a second execution mode of step S5.

[0139] Taking the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated as an example, he can be evaluated at t1, t2, t3, ..., t 12 For multiple periods, steps S1-S4 are performed for the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated, respectively, to obtain the core competency scores of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated during these periods. 12 It can be different months of the year, for example, t1 is January, t2 is February, etc.

[0140] In this embodiment, it has been explained above that when executing step S4, the product of the original score corresponding to each core competency evaluation indicator and the initial weight calculation can be used as the score of this core competency evaluation indicator, and then the scores of all core competency evaluation indicators are added together to obtain the core competency score. For example, for the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated, his core competency score at period t1 is It can be calculated by the following formula:

[0141]

[0142] in, is the original score obtained by the hospital infection management professional A at period t1 from the core competency evaluation indicator numbered Vi in the final core competency evaluation model shown in Table 1 (for example, 7 points are awarded for "fully satisfying" the core competency evaluation indicator Vi, and 4 points are awarded for "generally satisfying" the core competency evaluation indicator Vi). It is the initial weight of the core capability evaluation indicator numbered Vi.

[0143] Based on the above principle, in step S501B, for t1, t2, t3, ..., t 12 At different periods, the same core competency evaluation final model (the number, content and initial weight of the core competency evaluation indicators in the core competency evaluation final model are the same in different periods) can be used to score the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated. In this way, the evaluation of the hospital infection management professional A to be evaluated at t1, t2, t3...t 12 The core competency scores for each period are as follows:

[0144]

[0145] …

[0146]

[0147] In step S502B, a target score Target may be set according to the actual needs of the employer.

[0148] In step S503B, the weights of the core competence evaluation indicators in the final core competence evaluation model are adjusted respectively. In this embodiment, it is assumed that The corresponding weights are

[0149] In step S504B, the adjusted weights are used Recalculate at t1, t2, t3, ... t 12 The core competency scores of each period are as follows:

[0150]

[0151] …

[0152]

[0153] in Is the core competency score The corresponding adjustment scores are made, and so on.

[0154] In step S505B, the formula

[0155]

[0156] Calculate the average divation of the deviations of each adjusted score relative to the target score. The above divation calculation formula is similar to the variance calculation method, and the divation can also be calculated using a formula similar to the standard deviation or absolute value difference.

[0157] because The adjusted weight values ​​will affect the size of divation, so in step S505B, the constraint condition can be set to min{divation}, that is, the divation is minimized. In step S506B, the weight adjustment value of each core capability evaluation indicator is found when the constraint condition is met.

[0158] When executing step S506B, a large number (possibly tens of millions) of , calculate the divation of each combination, and then take the minimum value of the divation, and get the corresponding value of this minimum value The specific value of .

[0159] In step S506B, the method that can minimize the divation Still expressed as Then the adjusted weight may be related to the initial weights before adjustment Different, thus forming a weight adjustment value Δweight V-i ,Right now

[0160]

[0161] In step S507B, according to Δweight V-i etc. to adjust the weights and generate job recommendation information. V-i (i=1,2,……50) to find the minimum value (considering positive and negative, and assuming that the minimum value is negative), determine Vi (assuming it is V-37), and then find the dimension of the core competency evaluation indicator numbered Vi. For example, according to Table 1, it can be found that the dimension of the core competency evaluation indicator numbered V-37 is "leadership and control ability (MC)", so the position recommendation information with the content of "recommended to be transferred to the leadership position of hospital infection management" can be generated; for example, from all Δweight v-i Find the maximum value (consider positive and negative, and assume that the maximum value is a positive number) from (i=1,2,...50), determine Vi (assuming it is V-26), and then find the dimension of the core competency evaluation indicator numbered Vi. For example, according to Table 1, it can be found that the dimension of the core competency evaluation indicator numbered V-26 is "data monitoring capability (DS)", then the position recommendation information such as "not recommended to hold the data monitoring position for hospital infection management" or "recommended to transfer from the data monitoring position for hospital infection management" can be generated.

[0162] In this embodiment, the principle of executing steps S501B-S507B is that the set target score Target can represent the level of core competence required by the employer for the new position, and the adjusted weight The average divation of the deviations of each adjusted score from the target score can be minimized, indicating the adjusted weight The evaluation criteria that best fits the new position; each weight adjustment value Δweight v-i Indicates the evaluation criteria for the new position and the current position (applying the original weight ) difference, Δweight v-iThe minimum value in indicates that even if the weight of the core competency evaluation index numbered Vi is lowered, the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated can still meet the requirements of the new position, that is, the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated has sufficient ability in the dimension of the core competency evaluation index numbered Vi, and the position recommendation information with the content of "it is recommended to transfer the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated to a position related to this dimension" can be generated; on the contrary, Δweight v-i The maximum value in indicates that the weight of the core competency evaluation indicator numbered Vi needs to be increased so that the hospital infection management specialist to be evaluated can meet the requirements of the new position. That is, the ability of the hospital infection management specialist to be evaluated in the dimension of the core competency evaluation indicator numbered Vi is insufficient. Position recommendation information such as "It is recommended not to transfer the hospital infection management specialist to be evaluated to the position related to this dimension" or "It is recommended to transfer the hospital infection management specialist to be evaluated away from the position related to this dimension" can be generated.

[0163] By executing steps S501B-S507B, job requirements can be automatically matched, job suggestion information can be generated, and the intelligence level of job allocation can be improved.

[0164] A computer program that executes the core competence evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel in this embodiment can be written and written into a computer device or storage medium. When the computer program is read out and executed, the core competence evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel in this embodiment is executed, thereby achieving the same technical effect as the core competence evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel in the embodiment.

[0165] It should be noted that, unless otherwise specified, when a feature is referred to as being "fixed" or "connected" to another feature, it may be directly fixed or connected to the other feature, or it may be indirectly fixed or connected to the other feature. In addition, the descriptions of up, down, left, right, etc. used in the present disclosure are only relative to the relative positional relationship of the components of the present disclosure in the accompanying drawings. The singular forms of "a", "" and "the" used in the present disclosure are also intended to include the plural forms, unless the context clearly indicates other meanings. In addition, unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used in this embodiment have the same meaning as those generally understood by those skilled in the art. The terms used in the specification of this embodiment are only for describing specific embodiments and are not intended to limit the present invention. The term "and / or" used in this embodiment includes any combination of one or more related listed items.

[0166] It should be understood that, although the term first, second, third etc. may be adopted to describe various elements in the present disclosure, these elements should not be limited to these terms. These terms are only used to distinguish the same type of elements from each other. For example, without departing from the scope of the present disclosure, the first element may also be referred to as the second element, and similarly, the second element may also be referred to as the first element. The use of any and all examples or exemplary language ("for example", "such as" etc.) provided by the present embodiment is only intended to better illustrate embodiments of the present invention, and unless otherwise required, the scope of the present invention will not be limited.

[0167] It should be appreciated that embodiments of the present invention may be implemented or enforced by computer hardware, a combination of hardware and software, or by computer instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory. The method may be implemented in a computer program using standard programming techniques - including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured with a computer program, wherein the storage medium so configured causes the computer to operate in a specific and predefined manner - according to the methods and drawings described in the specific embodiments. Each program may be implemented in a high-level procedural or object-oriented programming language to communicate with a computer system. However, if desired, the program may be implemented in assembly or machine language. In any case, the language may be a compiled or interpreted language. In addition, the program may be run on a programmed dedicated integrated circuit for this purpose.

[0168] In addition, the operations of the process described in this embodiment may be performed in any suitable order, unless otherwise indicated in this embodiment or otherwise clearly contradicted by the context. The process described in this embodiment (or variations and / or combinations thereof) may be performed under the control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions, and may be implemented as a code (e.g., executable instructions, one or more computer programs, or one or more applications) executed on one or more processors in common, by hardware or a combination thereof. A computer program includes a plurality of instructions that may be executed by one or more processors.

[0169] Further, the method can be implemented in any type of computing platform that is operably connected to a suitable computer, including but not limited to a personal computer, a minicomputer, a mainframe, a workstation, a network or distributed computing environment, a separate or integrated computer platform, or in communication with a charged particle tool or other imaging device, etc. Various aspects of the present invention can be implemented in machine-readable code stored on a non-transitory storage medium or device, whether removable or integrated into a computing platform, such as a hard disk, an optical read and / or write storage medium, a RAM, a ROM, etc., so that it can be read by a programmable computer, and when the storage medium or device is read by the computer, it can be used to configure and operate the computer to perform the process described herein. In addition, the machine-readable code, or part thereof, can be transmitted via a wired or wireless network. When such media includes instructions or programs that implement the above steps in conjunction with a microprocessor or other data processor, the invention of this embodiment includes these and other different types of non-transitory computer-readable storage media. When programmed according to the methods and techniques of the present invention, the present invention also includes the computer itself.

[0170] The computer program can be applied to input data to perform the functions of the present embodiment, thereby converting the input data to generate output data stored in a non-volatile memory. The output information can also be applied to one or more output devices such as a display. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the converted data represents a physical and tangible object, including a specific visual depiction of the physical and tangible object produced on the display.

[0171] The above are only preferred embodiments of the present invention. The present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. As long as the technical effects of the present invention are achieved by the same means, any modifications, equivalent replacements, improvements, etc. made within the spirit and principles of the present invention shall be included in the scope of protection of the present invention. Within the scope of protection of the present invention, its technical solutions and / or implementation methods may have various modifications and changes.

Claims

1. A core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel, characterized in that: The core competency evaluation method for hospital infection management professionals includes: Obtain academic and industry information on hospital infection management; Establishing an initial model for core competence evaluation based on the academic information and the industry information; the initial model for core competence evaluation includes multiple core competence evaluation indicators for hospital infection management; Performing performance testing and structural optimization on the initial model of core competence evaluation to obtain a final model of core competence evaluation; the final model of core competence evaluation includes some or all of the core competence evaluation indicators in the initial model of core competence evaluation; The final core competency evaluation model is used to obtain the core competency scores of the hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated.

2. The core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The academic and industry information on hospital infection management is obtained, including: Set search keywords related to hospital infection management; Using the search keywords to search the academic database, obtaining literature information of hospital infection management type as the academic information; Conduct interviews with practitioners in the work organizations of the hospital infection management professionals to be evaluated, and obtain interview information as the industry information.

3. The core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel according to claim 2 is characterized in that: The establishing of an initial model for core competency evaluation based on the academic information and the industry information includes: Extracting features from the document information to obtain at least one first core capability evaluation indicator; Extracting features from the interview information to obtain at least one second core competency evaluation indicator; Determining at least one third core capability evaluation indicator according to each of the first core capability evaluation indicators and each of the second core capability evaluation indicators; The initial model for evaluating the core competence is constructed based on the third core competence evaluation indicators.

4. The core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The performing of performance testing and structural optimization on the initial model of core competence evaluation to obtain the final model of core competence evaluation includes: Conduct a survey on the target population based on the initial model for evaluating core competencies and obtain survey data; Conducting reliability analysis on the initial model of core competency evaluation based on the survey data; According to the result of the reliability analysis, the core competence evaluation indicators in the initial core competence evaluation model are screened, and the first core competence evaluation optimization model is obtained according to the screened core competence evaluation indicators; Conducting exploratory factor analysis on the first optimization model of core competency evaluation; According to the result of exploratory factor analysis, each of the core competence evaluation indicators in the first core competence evaluation optimization model is screened, and according to the screened core competence evaluation indicators, a second core competence evaluation optimization model is obtained; Conducting confirmatory factor analysis on the second optimization model of core competency evaluation; According to the result of confirmatory factor analysis, each of the core competence evaluation indicators in the second optimization model of the core competence evaluation is screened, and according to the screened core competence evaluation indicators, the final model of the core competence evaluation is obtained.

5. The core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel also includes: Before the performance test and structure optimization of the initial core competency evaluation model are performed, multiple rounds of expert consultation optimization are performed on the initial core competency evaluation model.

6. The core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel according to any one of claims 1 to 5, characterized in that: The core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel also includes: Based on the core competency score, job recommendation information for the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated is generated.

7. The core competency evaluation method for hospital infection management professionals according to claim 6 is characterized in that: Generating the job recommendation information of the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated based on the core competency score includes: Set score thresholds; The job recommendation information is generated according to the size relationship between the core competency score and the score threshold.

8. The core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel according to claim 6 is characterized in that: Generating the job recommendation information of the hospital infection management professional to be evaluated based on the core competency score includes: Acquire multiple core competency scores; each core competency score is obtained by using the same core competency evaluation final model to evaluate the core competency of the same hospital infection management professional to be evaluated at multiple different periods; Set target scores; Adjusting the weight of each of the core competence evaluation indicators in the final core competence evaluation model; According to the final core competency evaluation model after weight adjustment, adjusting each core competency score respectively to obtain a plurality of adjusted scores; Setting a constraint condition; wherein the constraint condition is that the average deviation of each of the adjusted scores relative to the target score is the smallest; Obtaining the weight adjustment value of each of the core capability evaluation indicators when the constraint conditions are met; The job recommendation information is generated according to each of the weight adjustment values.

9. A computer device, characterized in that: It includes a memory and a processor, the memory is used to store at least one program, and the processor is used to load at least one program to execute the core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel as described in any one of claims 1-8.

10. A computer-readable storage medium storing a program executable by a processor, characterized in that: The program executable by the processor is used to execute the core competency evaluation method for full-time hospital infection management personnel as described in any one of claims 1 to 8 when executed by the processor.

Images