Performance assessment system for hospital functional department and implementation method

Abstract

The invention relates to a hospital functional department performance assessment system and an implementation method, assessed functional department subjects including hospital leaders, functional departments at the same level and clinical departments are evaluated in multiple dimensions based on a 360-degree assessment method, the influence of factors in multiple aspects on assessment objects is comprehensively considered, the comprehensive quality of assessed objects is displayed in an omnibearing and three-dimensional mode, and the assessment efficiency is improved. According to the system, assessment blind spots are effectively avoided, assessment indexes are objective and customized continuously through quantized assessment indexes, the system can comprehensively and objectively evaluate the performance of functional departments, and the management efficiency and service quality of hospitals are improved.

Description

Technical field:

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of medical science management and data processing technology, and in particular to a hospital functional department performance appraisal system and an implementation method. Background technology:

[0002] Hospital performance appraisal is the core tool of hospital management. A systematic and effective hospital performance appraisal system can conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the degree of achievement of performance goals of each department based on the characteristics of each department by formulating scientific evaluation standards and using executable evaluation methods and quantitative evaluation indicators.

[0003] In the management practice of public hospitals, performance appraisal mainly focuses on the functional departments' appraisal of clinical, medical technology, and medical auxiliary departments. Performance appraisal of functional departments has always been a challenge. In previous studies, it was difficult to adopt traditional quantitative appraisal methods due to the diverse nature of work, different job responsibilities, and no direct participation in economic creation activities of functional departments. The appraisal method for functional departments is mostly qualitative, such as the evaluation of morality, ability, diligence, performance, and integrity, and it can only be assessed once every six months or a year. Not only is the appraisal dimension single, lacking in pertinence, quantitative indicators, and objectivity, but the evaluation cycle is too long, and the guidance and improvement of functional departments is of limited significance. Therefore, most hospitals directly determine the performance coefficient of functional departments by multiples of the average performance of the hospital. This appraisal method has long been criticized by clinical departments and has formed an invisible obstacle in the management of functional departments. Summary of the invention:

[0004] 1. Technical issues to be solved

[0005] The present invention aims to provide a performance appraisal system and implementation method for hospital functional departments. Based on the 360-degree evaluation method, the functional department subjects being appraised are evaluated in multiple dimensions, including hospital leaders, functional departments at the same level, and clinical departments. The system comprehensively considers the influence of various factors on the appraisal object, and comprehensively and three-dimensionally displays the comprehensive quality of the appraised object, effectively avoids "appraisal blind spots", and continuously objectifies and customizes the appraisal indicators through quantitative appraisal indicators. The system can comprehensively and objectively evaluate the performance of functional departments, improve the management efficiency and service quality of the hospital, and solve the problems of the existing technology that the appraisal dimension is single, lacks pertinence, lacks quantitative indicators and objectivity, and the evaluation cycle is too long, and the guidance and improvement significance for the functional departments is limited.

[0006] (II) Technical solution

[0007] In order to solve the above technical problems, the present invention adopts the following technical solutions:

[0008] A performance appraisal system for hospital functional departments, including a database, an indicator allocation module, a data collection module, an intelligent pre-scoring module, an evaluation entry module, a summary calculation module, a result display module, a performance docking module, a statistical analysis module, and a rectification feedback module;

[0009] The indicator allocation module is used to obtain the quantitative assessment indicators pre-stored in the database and decompose and allocate the quantitative assessment indicators to the responsible functional departments. The quantitative assessment indicators undertaken by each functional department are derived from the in-hospital decomposition indicator tasks of the national public hospital performance assessment indicators, the public hospital high-quality development indicators, and the annual task goals set by the functional departments themselves. The corresponding quantitative assessment indicators have agreed annual target values ​​and have different assessment scores.

[0010] The data collection module is used to collect the completion information of the quantitative assessment indicators corresponding to each responsible functional department and send it to the database for storage; the specific process is that the system automatically captures the data that can be monitored by the system, and manually fills in the data that cannot be monitored by the system;

[0011] The intelligent pre-scoring module is used to extract information on the actual values ​​of assessment indicators and compare them with the target values, specially mark the assessment indicators that do not meet the standards, and remind deputy leaders to deduct points, and record the reason for the deduction as "xx indicator does not meet the standards"; after receiving the system reminder, the head of the hospital can consider whether to deduct points again based on the points deducted by the deputy leaders.

[0012] The evaluation entry module: users enter their evaluations online within a specified time through a computer or mobile phone; different evaluation pages are established for hospital leadership evaluation, functional department mutual evaluation, and clinical department evaluation, and the evaluation deduction rules are displayed on the evaluation page, and various assessment indicators and their specific requirements are displayed to hospital leaders and functional departments to ensure that each scorer can accurately understand their respective responsibilities and assessment standards; when entering the evaluation, the system provides a data review function to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the input data, and the system can automatically match the corresponding scoring weights for different evaluators. After the evaluation is confirmed and submitted, it is sent to the database for storage;

[0013] The summary calculation module: according to the preset mathematical model, the system administrator configures the weights of different assessment dimensions, and the system automatically calculates the average assessment scores of hospital leaders of each functional department, the average assessment scores of clinical departments, and the average assessment scores within the functional department, and calculates the final score according to the weight rules;

[0014] The result display module is used to provide an intuitive result display interface, aiming to provide real-time indicator completion status display, including the score of each functional department and the reason for deduction, allowing the director of the functional department to query the score of the department, allowing the hospital leaders and administrators to query the scores of all functional departments, and export the assessment result report. The annual assessment score is derived from the summary and average of the monthly assessment scores, and affects the annual assessment of cadres;

[0015] The performance docking module: docks the assessment results with the hospital's performance management system, realizes the automatic association between the assessment results and the actual performance, and automatically adjusts the performance distribution of the functional departments according to the final score;

[0016] The statistical analysis module: performs statistical analysis on the assessment data, generates reports, and intuitively displays the current indicator completion status of each functional department and the comparison with the target value in the form of charts and data tables, providing decision support for hospital management;

[0017] The rectification feedback module is used by the functional departments to analyze the causes of non-compliance with the indicators, propose specific rectification measures and plans, clarify the rectification period, and evaluate and summarize the rectification effect after the rectification is completed.

[0018] Through the above steps, the hospital management department can realize the information processing of the entire process from data entry to result display, while ensuring the quantification, fairness, impartiality, accuracy and transparency of the assessment.

[0019] Furthermore, the evaluation entry module displays the evaluation deduction content including:

[0020] Assessment indicator list: List the specific indicators that all functional departments need to achieve, including the name, description, and target value of the indicator;

[0021] Assessment cycle: clarify the assessment cycle for each assessment indicator, including monthly, quarterly or annual;

[0022] Data source: Indicate the data source of each assessment indicator, including hospital performance system, hospital management system, operation system, and manual entry.

[0023] Furthermore, the mathematical model preset by the summary calculation module includes:

[0024] Calculation model for the average score of hospital leaders’ assessment:

[0025]

[0026] Calculation model for average score of clinical department assessment:

[0027]

[0028] Calculation model for average score of internal assessment of functional departments

[0029]

[0030] Final score calculation model:

[0031] S=ω L ·L+ω C ·C+ω F ·F

[0032] The variables are defined as follows:

[0033] L i : The score of the i-th hospital leader, i = 1, 2, ..., l

[0034] ω Li :The weight of the i-th hospital leader, the weights of the principal and deputy are different

[0035] F j : The score of the jth functional department, j = 1, 2, ..., f, each functional department has equal weight

[0036] C k : The score of the kth clinical department, k = 1, 2, ..., m, where m is the number of clinical departments participating in the scoring each month, and each clinical department has equal weight

[0037] ω L :The weight of the average score of the hospital leaders' assessment

[0038] ω C : Weight of the average score of clinical assessment

[0039] ω F : The weight of the average score of mutual evaluation among functional departments

[0040] S: Final score of the functional department

[0041] in,

[0042] Define the weights of hospital leadership assessment, functional department assessment, and clinical department assessment L +ω C +ω F =1.

[0043] Weight ω L ,ω C ,ω F Based on the actual situation of the hospital and the assessment target setting, the decision is made through the hospital leadership team meeting to ensure the fairness and rationality of the assessment of each part.

[0044] The number m of clinical departments participating in scoring each month may vary depending on actual conditions, and the system can dynamically handle scores from different numbers of clinical departments.

[0045] The internal scoring of functional departments can be calculated using more complex methods based on actual conditions, such as weighted average, median, etc. This model uses simple average for the sake of simplicity.

[0046] Furthermore, in the performance docking module, the actual performance calculation formula is:

[0047]

[0048] in,

[0049] P: Expected performance of functional departments

[0050] S: Final score of the functional department

[0051] S m : The highest score of the functional department this month

[0052] A: Actual performance of functional departments

[0053] Furthermore, the system also includes a permission management module and an information security and encryption module. The permission management module is used to set the levels of operation permissions for different types of users, including hospital leadership permissions, functional department permissions, clinical department permissions, and system administrator permissions. The system administrator permissions have the highest permissions and are used to view all encrypted indicator information. The information security and encryption module is used to encrypt the assessment indicator information stored in the database.

[0054] Furthermore, the authority management module allocates different account permissions according to user roles to ensure data security and fairness of the assessment process. The user roles include:

[0055] (1) General Scorers

[0056] Authority: Generally, the scorer has the authority to conduct monthly evaluation of functional departments. He can score the services and management of each functional department in the system and provide corresponding evaluation descriptions;

[0057] Restricted content: Generally, the scorers cannot view the final scores of the evaluated functional departments, nor can they view the scores of other clinical departments, to ensure the fairness and anonymity of the scores;

[0058] (2) Director of functional department

[0059] Authority: In addition to the authority of a general scorer, the functional department director can also query the score of the department and view the detailed information of the score and deduction reasons of the department in various assessment indicators;

[0060] Restricted content: Personnel in functional departments cannot view the scores of other functional departments, nor can they view the scores of clinical departments and leaders;

[0061] (3) Deputy leaders

[0062] Authority: Deputy leaders have the authority to view the scores of all functional departments and can browse the assessment results of each functional department, including the scores and reasons for deductions. In addition, deputy leaders can also view the scores of all clinical departments on the functional departments to understand the satisfaction of clinical departments with the functional departments;

[0063] Restricted content: Deputy leaders cannot view the scores of other leaders to ensure the fairness and objectivity of the scores;

[0064] (4) Full-time leadership

[0065] Authority: The principal leader has all the authority of the deputy leader, and can also view the scores of all leaders, and can fully understand the performance appraisal of all levels of the hospital, providing strong support for the overall management of the hospital;

[0066] Restricted content: When viewing data, the principal leader must comply with the system's data security and confidentiality regulations to ensure data compliance and security;

[0067] (5) Evaluation management department

[0068] Authority: The authority of the evaluation management department is equivalent to that of the principal leader, and has the authority to view the scores of all functional departments, all clinical departments and all leaders. In addition, the evaluation management department is also responsible for the daily maintenance and management of the system to ensure the normal operation of the system and data security;

[0069] Restricted content: When exercising their authority, the management department must comply with relevant laws and regulations and the hospital's rules and regulations to ensure compliance and fairness of their work;

[0070] (6) Performance Department

[0071] Permissions: The performance department can view the performance appraisal results of all functional departments, including the final scores and reasons for deductions, but cannot see the detailed scoring items of all clinical departments, all functional departments and all leaders. The performance department can associate the appraisal results of functional departments with actual performance, connect them with monthly performance accounting, use the appraisal results as the basis for performance accounting, and calculate the performance bonuses or reward and punishment measures of each functional department;

[0072] Restricted content: When exercising their authority, the performance department needs to comply with relevant laws and regulations and the hospital's rules and regulations. At the same time, they also need to protect the privacy information of the hospital and employees and ensure data security and compliance.

[0073] Furthermore, the information security and encryption module is used to encrypt sensitive data to ensure information security. Its main functions include:

[0074] (1) Network IP address restriction

[0075] Limit the IP addresses that access the network to ensure that only authorized IP addresses can access the system, which helps prevent unauthorized access and potential security risks. Specific restrictions include geographical restrictions and quantity restrictions to ensure the compliance use and fair allocation of IP addresses;

[0076] (2) User account and password management

[0077] User account: Use work number as user account to ensure the uniqueness and traceability of the account;

[0078] Initial password: When users log in to the system for the first time, they need to use the initial password to log in. To ensure the security of the account, users are required to change the initial password after logging in before proceeding to the next step;

[0079] Password policy: There are clear requirements for the complexity of passwords. Passwords must be composed of numbers, letters and special characters, and the length must meet certain requirements. The password length set for secret-level computers cannot be less than 8 characters, and the password length set for confidential-level computers cannot be less than 10 characters. In addition, a password replacement cycle is set to prevent password leakage and abuse;

[0080] (3) Firewall

[0081] Used to monitor network traffic and control the inflow and outflow of traffic according to predefined rules. Firewalls detect and block unauthorized access and attacks, protecting systems from malicious attacks and data leaks. In addition, firewalls also support VPN virtual private networks, provide encryption and authentication functions, and ensure the secure transmission of data on public networks;

[0082] (4) Automatic backup and recovery

[0083] Automatic backup: The system automatically performs backup operations every day to back up important data to a secure storage medium. The backup operation is performed when the computer is idle to avoid affecting normal business operations. During the backup process, the backup files are encrypted to prevent data leakage.

[0084] Data recovery: The backup content can be restored at any time to ensure that business operations can be quickly restored in the event of system failure or data loss. The recovery process is simple and fast. You only need to select the backup file to be restored and perform the recovery operation.

[0085] The present invention also discloses a method for implementing performance assessment of hospital functional departments, comprising the following steps:

[0086] S1, obtain the quantitative assessment indicators pre-stored in the database and decompose and allocate the quantitative assessment indicators to the responsible functional departments. The corresponding quantitative assessment indicators have agreed annual target values ​​and have different assessment scores;

[0087] S2. Collect and store the completion information of the quantitative assessment indicators corresponding to each responsible functional department. The collection methods include automatic capture by the system and manual input and reporting;

[0088] S3. Extract the information of the actual value of the assessment indicator and compare it with the target value. Mark the assessment indicators that fail to meet the target and remind the corresponding authorized users to deduct points. The reason for deduction is recorded as "xx indicator fails to meet the target";

[0089] S4. Enter user evaluations, establish different evaluation interfaces for hospital leaders’ evaluations, functional departments’ mutual evaluations, and clinical departments’ evaluations, and display the rules for scoring deductions. Perform data review when entering evaluations to ensure the accuracy and completeness of input data, match corresponding scoring weights for different evaluators, and store the evaluations after submission;

[0090] S5. According to the preset mathematical model, different assessment dimensions are assigned weights for different assessment objects, and the average assessment scores of hospital leaders, clinical departments, and functional departments are automatically calculated, and the final scores are calculated according to the weight rules;

[0091] The mathematical model includes:

[0092] Calculation model for the average score of hospital leaders’ assessment:

[0093]

[0094] Calculation model for average score of clinical department assessment:

[0095]

[0096] Calculation model for average score of internal assessment of functional departments

[0097]

[0098] Final score calculation model:

[0099] S=ω L ·L+ω C ·C+ω F ·F

[0100] The variables are defined as follows:

[0101] L i: The score of the i-th hospital leader, i = 1, 2, ..., l

[0102] ω Li :The weight of the i-th hospital leader, the weights of the principal and deputy are different

[0103] F j : The score of the jth functional department, j = 1, 2, ..., f, each functional department has equal weight

[0104] C k : The score of the kth clinical department, k = 1, 2, ..., m, where m is the number of clinical departments participating in the scoring each month, and each clinical department has equal weight

[0105] ω L :The weight of the average score of the hospital leaders' assessment

[0106] ω C : Weight of the average score of clinical assessment

[0107] ω F : The weight of the average score of mutual evaluation among functional departments

[0108] S: Final score of the functional department

[0109] in,

[0110] Define the weights of hospital leadership assessment, functional department assessment, and clinical department assessment L +ω C +ω F =1.

[0111] Weight ω L ,ω C ,ω F It is set according to the actual situation of the hospital and the assessment objectives.

[0112] S6. Display the assessment results, including the scores of each functional department and the reasons for deductions. Set different viewing permissions according to different positions, allowing the heads of functional departments to query the scores of their departments, allowing hospital leaders and system administrators to query the scores of all functional departments, and export the assessment result report. The annual assessment score is derived from the summary average of the monthly assessment scores;

[0113] S7. Connect the assessment results with the hospital's performance management system to automatically associate the assessment results with actual performance, and automatically adjust the performance distribution of functional departments based on the final scores;

[0114] The actual performance calculation formula is as follows:

[0115]

[0116] The variables are defined as follows:

[0117] P: Expected performance of functional departments

[0118] A: Actual performance of functional departments

[0119] S m : The highest score of the functional department this month

[0120] S: Final score of the functional department

[0121] S8. Statistical analysis of assessment data is conducted and reports are generated. Through charts and data tables, the completion status of the current indicators of each functional department and the comparison with the target values ​​are intuitively displayed to provide decision support for hospital management;

[0122] S9. Provide feedback and rectification. The functional departments shall analyze the reasons for non-compliance with the standards, propose specific rectification measures and plans, clarify the rectification deadline, and evaluate and summarize the rectification results after the rectification is completed.

[0123] (III) Beneficial effects

[0124] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are:

[0125] (1) Comprehensive evaluation: Based on the 360-degree evaluation method, the evaluation dimensions are more extensive, making the performance evaluation of functional departments more comprehensive and forming a three-dimensional evaluation;

[0126] (2) Clear goals: Based on the theory of management by objectives, a standardized and effective performance appraisal system is formed to comprehensively and finely evaluate and calculate the task indicators of functional departments, so that the appraisal goals and results are more accurate, clear and well-founded, which can provide strong support for hospital management and promote the improvement of hospital operation efficiency;

[0127] (3) Accurate and efficient evaluation: By applying an automated and information-based performance appraisal system, the accuracy and efficiency of the appraisal are improved, ensuring the transparency of the appraisal process.

[0128] (4) High flexibility: The performance appraisal system and method provided by the present invention has a clear source of appraisal indicators, a simple and clear method for calculating appraisal results, and a flexible weight setting that can be adjusted according to actual conditions, and is easy to implement and operate. Description of the drawings:

[0129] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention, the drawings required for use in the embodiments are briefly introduced below.

[0130] Figure 1 It is a principle block diagram of the performance appraisal system in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0131] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the assessment process of an embodiment of the present invention;

[0132] Figure 3 A schematic diagram of an evaluation interface for the authority of hospital leaders in a performance appraisal system in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0133] Figure 4 A schematic diagram of an evaluation interface for the authority of functional departments of a performance appraisal system in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0134] Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of an evaluation interface for clinical department authority of a performance appraisal system in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0135] Figure 6 It is an interface for the management department of the performance appraisal system to query the scores of the hospital leaders in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0136] Figure 7 It is an interface for the management department of the performance appraisal system in the embodiment of the present invention to query the scores of each functional department;

[0137] Figure 8 It is an interface for the management department of the performance appraisal system to query the scoring of clinical departments in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0138] Fig. 9 It is an interface for the management department of the performance appraisal system to query the scoring of the functional departments in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0139] Fig.10 This is a schematic diagram of the impact of the assessment results on performance in an embodiment of the present invention; Specific implementation method:

[0140] The technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be described clearly and completely below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present invention.

[0141] Example 1

[0142] See also Figure 1 As shown, a performance appraisal system for hospital functional departments includes a database, an indicator allocation module, a data collection module, an intelligent pre-scoring module, an evaluation entry module, a summary calculation module, a result display module, a performance docking module, a statistical analysis module, and a rectification feedback module;

[0143] Indicator allocation module: used to obtain the quantitative assessment indicators pre-stored in the database and decompose and allocate the quantitative assessment indicators to the responsible functional departments. The quantitative assessment indicators undertaken by each functional department are derived from the in-hospital decomposition indicator tasks of the national public hospital performance assessment indicators, the high-quality development indicators of public hospitals, and the annual task goals set by the functional departments themselves. The corresponding quantitative assessment indicators have agreed annual target values ​​and have different assessment scores;

[0144] Data collection module: used to collect the completion information of the quantitative assessment indicators corresponding to each responsible functional department and send it to the database for storage; the specific process is that the system automatically captures the data that can be monitored by the system, and manually fills in the data that cannot be monitored by the system;

[0145] Intelligent pre-scoring module: used to extract information on the actual values ​​of assessment indicators and compare them with the target values. Assessment indicators that do not meet the standards will be specially marked, and deputy leaders will be reminded to deduct points, with the reason for the deduction recorded as "xx indicator does not meet the standards"; after receiving the system reminder, the head of the hospital can consider whether to deduct points again based on the deduction made by the deputy leaders.

[0146] Evaluation entry module: users can enter their evaluations online or online within a specified time through computers or mobile phones; different evaluation pages are established for hospital leadership evaluation, functional department mutual evaluation, and clinical department evaluation, and the evaluation deduction rules are displayed on the evaluation page, showing hospital leadership and functional departments various assessment indicators and their specific requirements to ensure that each scorer can accurately understand their respective responsibilities and assessment standards; when entering evaluations, the system provides a data review function to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the input data, and the system can automatically match the corresponding scoring weights for different evaluators. After the evaluation is confirmed and submitted, it is sent to the database for storage;

[0147] Summary calculation module: Based on the preset mathematical model, the system administrator configures the weights of different assessment dimensions. The system automatically calculates the average assessment scores of hospital leaders of each functional department, the average assessment scores of clinical departments, and the average assessment scores within the functional department, and calculates the final score based on the weight rules;

[0148] Result display module: used to provide an intuitive result display interface, aiming to provide real-time indicator completion status display, including the scores of each functional department and the reasons for deductions. It allows the heads of functional departments to query the scores of their departments, and allows hospital leaders and administrators to query the scores of all functional departments, and export the assessment result report. The annual assessment score is derived from the summary and average of the monthly assessment scores, and affects the annual assessment of cadres;

[0149] Performance docking module: docking the assessment results with the hospital's performance management system, realizing the automatic association between the assessment results and actual performance, and automatically adjusting the performance distribution of functional departments according to the final scores;

[0150] Statistical analysis module: Statistical analysis of assessment data is performed to generate reports. Through charts and data tables, the current indicator completion status of each functional department and the comparison with the target value are intuitively displayed to provide decision support for hospital management;

[0151] Correction feedback module: It is used by functional departments to analyze the causes of non-compliance with indicators, propose specific correction measures and plans, clarify the correction deadline, and evaluate and summarize the correction effect after the correction is completed.

[0152] Through the above steps, the hospital management department can realize the information processing of the entire process from data entry to result display, while ensuring the quantification, fairness, impartiality, accuracy and transparency of the assessment.

[0153] The evaluation entry module displays the evaluation deduction rules including:

[0154] Assessment indicator list: List the specific indicators that all functional departments need to achieve, including the name, description, and target value of the indicator;

[0155] Assessment cycle: clarify the assessment cycle for each assessment indicator, including monthly, quarterly or annual;

[0156] Data source: Indicate the data source of each assessment indicator, including hospital performance system, hospital management system, operation system, and manual entry.

[0157] The preset mathematical models of the summary calculation module include:

[0158] Calculation model for the average score of hospital leaders’ assessment:

[0159]

[0160] Calculation model for average score of clinical department assessment:

[0161]

[0162] Calculation model for average score of internal assessment of functional departments

[0163]

[0164] Final score calculation model:

[0165] S=ω L ·L+ω C ·C+ω F ·F

[0166] The variables are defined as follows:

[0167] L i : The score of the i-th hospital leader, i = 1, 2, ..., l

[0168] ω Li :The weight of the i-th hospital leader, the weights of the principal and deputy are different

[0169] F j: The score of the jth functional department, j = 1, 2, ..., f, each functional department has equal weight

[0170] C k : The score of the kth clinical department, k = 1, 2, ..., m, where m is the number of clinical departments participating in the scoring each month, and each clinical department has equal weight

[0171] ω L :The weight of the average score of the hospital leaders' assessment

[0172] ω C : Weight of the average score of clinical assessment

[0173] ω F : The weight of the average score of mutual evaluation among functional departments

[0174] S: Final score of the functional department

[0175] in,

[0176] Define the weights of hospital leadership assessment, functional department assessment, and clinical department assessment L +ω C +ω F =1.

[0177] Weight ω L ,ω C ,ω F Based on the actual situation of the hospital and the assessment target setting, the decision is made through the hospital leadership team meeting to ensure the fairness and rationality of the assessment of each part.

[0178] The number m of clinical departments participating in the scoring each month may vary depending on the actual situation, and the system can dynamically handle the scores of different numbers of clinical departments.

[0179] The internal scoring of functional departments can be calculated using more complex methods based on actual conditions, such as weighted average, median, etc. This model uses simple average for the sake of simplicity.

[0180] In the performance docking module, the actual performance calculation formula is:

[0181]

[0182] in,

[0183] P: Expected performance of functional departments

[0184] S: Final score of the functional department

[0185] S m : The highest score of the functional department this month

[0186] A: Actual performance of functional departments

[0187] The system also includes a permission management module and an information security and encryption module. The permission management module is used to set levels of operation permissions for different types of users, including hospital leadership permissions, functional department permissions, clinical department permissions, and system administrator permissions. The system administrator permissions have the highest permissions and are used to view all encrypted indicator information. The information security and encryption module is used to encrypt the assessment indicator information stored in the database.

[0188] Through the construction of the above system, a performance appraisal system is formed with three dimensions: evaluation by hospital leaders, mutual evaluation by functional departments, and evaluation by clinical medical and technical departments.

[0189] Evaluation content: The evaluation of hospital leaders is a quarterly evaluation, which evaluates the quantitative indicators undertaken by various functional departments. Each evaluation is used for one quarter. The indicators include the in-hospital decomposition indicator tasks of the national public hospital performance evaluation indicators, the high-quality development indicators of public hospitals, the in-hospital decomposition indicators of the annual evaluation goals of the National Health Commission, and several annual task goals set by the functional departments themselves. The corresponding indicators have different weights.

[0190] The evaluation of clinical medical and technical departments is a monthly satisfaction evaluation, which evaluates the work attitude, work coordination, work methods, work quality, work initiative, and innovation awareness of the functional departments. The score will be used for one month after each evaluation.

[0191] The mutual evaluation of functional departments is a monthly evaluation, which is divided into management system evaluation and satisfaction evaluation. The management system evaluation clause is proposed by each functional department based on its own responsibilities to evaluate other functional departments. For multi-department cooperation tasks, the leading functional department can propose the evaluation content for the cooperating departments. The satisfaction evaluation is the same as the satisfaction evaluation of clinical medical and technical departments. Each evaluation is used for one month.

[0192] Application of assessment scores: Monthly scores are used for functional department performance appraisals, and annual aggregate average scores are used for annual appraisals of functional department directors.

[0193] Information system development: The independently developed performance appraisal system for functional departments ensures the fairness, equity and openness of the appraisal process, synchronously updates the appraisal results, and provides publicity and appeal links.

[0194] System Implementation: This system is implemented in Wuhan Fourth Hospital. Users can log in and score by clicking on the internal link on a computer or mobile phone. The assessment system automatically calculates the final score and updates it synchronously in the performance system.

[0195] Process standardization: Standardize the process to form a system, and run it smoothly in the three campuses of the hospital. Start the monthly quality evaluation at the beginning of the month, complete the evaluation scoring, publicity, appeal and other work in the middle of the month, and complete the performance deduction and evaluation work summary at the end of the month.

[0196] Example 2

[0197] See also Figure 2-Figure 10 , a performance appraisal implementation method of a hospital functional department performance appraisal system, comprising:

[0198] Obtain the quantitative assessment indicators pre-stored in the database and decompose and allocate them to responsible functional departments. The corresponding quantitative assessment indicators have agreed annual target values ​​and have different assessment scores;

[0199] At the beginning of each month, the entire hospital will be notified to conduct assessment and scoring, and the completion information of the corresponding quantitative assessment indicators of each responsible functional department will be collected and stored. The collection methods include automatic capture by the system and manual input and reporting;

[0200] Extract the information of the actual value of the assessment indicator and compare it with the target value. Mark the assessment indicators that have not met the standard, and remind the corresponding authorized users to deduct points, and record the reason for deduction as "xx indicator has not met the standard". Remind the deputy leaders to deduct points, and record the reason for deduction as "xx indicator has not met the standard". After receiving the system reminder, the head of the hospital can consider whether to deduct points again on the basis of the deduction of the deputy leaders.

[0201] Enter user evaluations, establish different evaluation interfaces for hospital leaders’ evaluations, functional departments’ mutual evaluations, and clinical departments’ evaluations, and display the rules for scoring deductions. Perform data review when entering evaluations to ensure the accuracy and completeness of input data, match corresponding scoring weights for different evaluators, and store the evaluations after submission.

[0202] like Figure 3 , Figure 4 and Figure 5 As shown, the evaluation interfaces of the hospital leaders, functional departments, and clinical departments in the system are displayed respectively.

[0203] According to the preset mathematical model, different assessment dimensions are assigned weights for different assessment objects, and the average assessment scores of hospital leaders, clinical departments, and functional departments are automatically calculated;

[0204] The assessment results are displayed, including the scores of each functional department and the reasons for deductions. Different viewing permissions are set according to different positions. The heads of functional departments are allowed to query the scores of their departments, and the leaders of the hospital and the system administrators are allowed to query the scores of all functional departments. The assessment result report can be exported. Figure 6-Figure 9 .

[0205] During this process, we accept feedback and appeals from various departments or personnel, revise the scoring results based on actual conditions, and hold a quality analysis meeting to further review and control the scoring results.

[0206] After the scoring is completed, the assessment results will be connected to the hospital's performance management system to achieve automatic association between the assessment results and actual performance, and the performance distribution of functional departments will be automatically adjusted according to the final score. Fig.10 .

[0207] Conduct statistical analysis on assessment data, generate reports, report and publicize results in the form of charts and data tables, intuitively display the current indicator completion status of each functional department and the comparison with the target value, and provide decision-making support for hospital management;

[0208] Feedback and rectification will be carried out, and the functional departments will analyze the reasons for non-compliance with the indicators, propose specific rectification measures and plans, clarify the rectification period, and evaluate and summarize the rectification results after the rectification is completed.

[0209] To sum up, the present invention aims to provide a performance appraisal system and implementation method for hospital functional departments. Based on the 360-degree evaluation method, the functional department subjects being appraised are evaluated in multiple dimensions, including hospital leaders, functional departments at the same level, and clinical departments. It comprehensively considers the influence of various factors on the appraisal object, and comprehensively and three-dimensionally displays the comprehensive quality of the appraised object, effectively avoids "appraisal blind spots", and continuously objectifies and customizes the appraisal indicators through quantitative appraisal indicators. The system can comprehensively and objectively evaluate the performance of functional departments, improve the management efficiency and service quality of the hospital, and solve the problems of the existing technology that the appraisal dimension is single, lacks pertinence, lacks quantitative indicators and objectivity, and the evaluation cycle is too long, and the guidance and improvement significance for the functional departments is limited.

[0210] The present invention is described above by way of examples, but the present invention is not limited to the above specific embodiments, and any changes or modifications made based on the present invention belong to the scope of protection claimed by the present invention.

Claims

1. A performance appraisal system for hospital functional departments, characterized in that: It includes database, indicator allocation module, data collection module, intelligent pre-scoring module, evaluation entry module, summary calculation module, result display module, performance docking module, statistical analysis module, and rectification feedback module; The indicator allocation module is used to obtain the quantitative assessment indicators pre-stored in the database and decompose and allocate the quantitative assessment indicators to the responsible functional departments. The corresponding quantitative assessment indicators have agreed annual target values ​​and have different assessment scores. The data collection module is used to collect the completion information of the quantitative assessment indicators corresponding to each responsible functional department and send it to the database for storage; the specific process is that for the data that the system can automatically monitor, the system automatically captures it, and for the data that the system cannot automatically monitor, it is manually filled in; The intelligent pre-scoring module is used to extract information about the actual value of the assessment indicator and compare it with the target value, specially mark the assessment indicators that do not meet the standard, and remind relevant authorized personnel to deduct points, and record the reason for the deduction as "xx indicator does not meet the standard"; The evaluation entry module: users enter their evaluations online through computers or mobile phones within a specified time; different evaluation pages are established for hospital leadership evaluation, functional department mutual evaluation, and clinical department evaluation, and the evaluation deduction rules are displayed on the evaluation page. When entering the evaluation, the system conducts data review and automatically matches the corresponding scoring weights for different evaluators. After the evaluation is confirmed and submitted, it is sent to the database for storage; The summary calculation module: according to the preset mathematical model, the system administrator configures the weights of different assessment dimensions, and the system automatically calculates the average assessment scores of hospital leaders of each functional department, the average assessment scores of clinical departments, and the average assessment scores within the functional department, and calculates the final score according to the weight rules; The result display module is used to provide an intuitive result display interface, including the score of each functional department and the reasons for deduction, allowing the director of the functional department to query the score of the department, allowing the hospital leaders and administrators to query the scores of all functional departments, and export the assessment result report; The performance docking module: docks the assessment results with the hospital's performance management system, realizes the automatic association between the assessment results and the actual performance, and automatically adjusts the performance distribution of the functional departments according to the final score; The statistical analysis module performs statistical analysis on the assessment data and generates reports, which display the current indicator completion status of each functional department and the comparison with the target value in the form of charts and data tables, so as to provide decision support for hospital management; The rectification feedback module is used by the functional departments to analyze the causes of non-compliance with the indicators, propose specific rectification measures and plans, clarify the rectification period, and evaluate and summarize the rectification effect after the rectification is completed.

2. A hospital functional department performance appraisal system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The evaluation entry module displays the evaluation deduction content including: Assessment indicator list: List the specific indicators that all functional departments need to achieve, including the name, description, and target value of the indicator; Assessment cycle: clarify the assessment cycle for each assessment indicator, including monthly, quarterly or annual; Data source: Indicate the data source of each assessment indicator, including hospital performance system, hospital management system, operation system, and manual entry.

3. A hospital functional department performance appraisal system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The mathematical model preset by the summary calculation module includes: Calculation model for the average score of hospital leaders’ assessment: Calculation model for average score of clinical department assessment: Calculation model for average score of internal assessment of functional departments Final score calculation model: S=ω L ·L+ω C ·C+ω F ·F The variables are defined as follows: L i : The score of the i-th hospital leader, i = 1, 2, ..., l; ω Li : The weight of the i-th hospital leader is different for the principal and deputy positions; F j : The score of the jth functional department, j = 1, 2, ..., f, and each functional department has equal weight; C k : The score of the kth clinical department, k = 1, 2, ..., m, where m is the number of clinical departments participating in the scoring each month, and each clinical department has equal weight; ω L : The weight of the average score of the hospital leaders' assessment; ω C : The weight of the average score of clinical assessment; ω F : The weight of the average score of mutual evaluation among functional departments; S: final score of the functional department; in, Define the weights of hospital leadership assessment, functional department assessment, and clinical department assessment L +ω C +ω F =1; Weight ω L ,ω C ,ω F According to the actual situation of the hospital and the assessment target setting; The number m of clinical departments participating in the scoring each month will vary depending on the actual situation, and the system dynamically handles the scores of different numbers of clinical departments.

4. A hospital functional department performance appraisal system according to claim 1, characterized in that: In the performance docking module, the actual performance calculation formula is: in, P: the expected performance of the functional department, S: the final score of the functional department, S m : The highest score of the functional department this month, A: The actual performance of functional departments.

5. A hospital functional department performance appraisal system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The system also includes a permission management module and an information security and encryption module. The permission management module is used to set the levels of operation permissions for different types of users, including hospital leadership permissions, functional department permissions, clinical department permissions, and system administrator permissions. The system administrator permissions have the highest permissions and are used to view all encrypted indicator information. The information security and encryption module is used to encrypt the assessment indicator information stored in the database.

6. A hospital functional department performance appraisal system according to claim 5, characterized in that: The authority management module allocates different account permissions according to user roles to ensure data security and fairness of the assessment process. The user roles include: (1) General Scorers Authority: Generally, the scorer has the authority to conduct monthly evaluation of functional departments. He can score the services and management of each functional department in the system and provide corresponding evaluation descriptions; Restricted content: Generally, the scorers cannot view the final scores of the evaluated functional departments, nor can they view the scores of other clinical departments, to ensure the fairness and anonymity of the scores; (2) Director of functional department Authority: In addition to the authority of a general scorer, the functional department director can also query the score of the department and view the detailed information of the score and deduction reasons of the department in various assessment indicators; Restricted content: Personnel in functional departments cannot view the scores of other functional departments, nor can they view the scores of clinical departments and leaders; (3) Deputy leaders Authority: Deputy leaders have the authority to view the scores of all functional departments and can browse the assessment results of each functional department, including the scores and reasons for deductions. In addition, deputy leaders can also view the scores of all clinical departments on the functional departments to understand the satisfaction of clinical departments with the functional departments; Restricted content: Deputy leaders cannot view the scores of other leaders to ensure the fairness and objectivity of the scores; (4) Full-time leadership Authority: The principal leader has all the authority of the deputy leader, and can also view the scores of all leaders, and can fully understand the performance appraisal of all levels of the hospital, providing strong support for the overall management of the hospital; Restricted content: When viewing data, the principal leader must comply with the system's data security and confidentiality regulations to ensure data compliance and security; (5) Evaluation management department Authority: The authority of the evaluation management department is equivalent to that of the principal leader, and has the authority to view the scores of all functional departments, all clinical departments and all leaders. In addition, the evaluation management department is also responsible for the daily maintenance and management of the system to ensure the normal operation of the system and data security; Restricted content: When exercising their authority, the management department must comply with relevant laws and regulations and the hospital's rules and regulations to ensure compliance and fairness of their work; (6) Performance Department Permissions: The performance department can view the performance appraisal results of all functional departments, including the final scores and reasons for deductions, but cannot see the detailed scoring items of all clinical departments, all functional departments and all leaders. The performance department can associate the appraisal results of functional departments with actual performance, connect them with monthly performance accounting, use the appraisal results as the basis for performance accounting, and calculate the performance bonuses or reward and punishment measures of each functional department; Restricted content: When exercising their authority, the performance department needs to comply with relevant laws and regulations and the hospital's rules and regulations. At the same time, they also need to protect the privacy information of the hospital and employees and ensure data security and compliance.

7. A hospital functional department performance appraisal system according to claim 5, characterized in that: The information security and encryption module is used to encrypt sensitive data to ensure information security. Its main functions include: (1) Network IP address restriction Limit the IP addresses that access the network to ensure that only authorized IP addresses can access the system, which helps prevent unauthorized access and potential security risks. Specific restrictions include geographical restrictions and quantity restrictions to ensure the compliance use and fair allocation of IP addresses; (2) User account and password management User account: Use work number as user account to ensure the uniqueness and traceability of the account; Initial password: When users log in to the system for the first time, they need to use the initial password to log in. To ensure the security of the account, users are required to change the initial password after logging in before proceeding to the next step; Password policy: There are clear requirements for the complexity of passwords. Passwords must be composed of numbers, letters and special characters, and the length must meet certain requirements. The password length set for secret-level computers cannot be less than 8 characters, and the password length set for confidential-level computers cannot be less than 10 characters. In addition, a password replacement cycle is set to prevent password leakage and abuse; (3) Firewall Used to monitor network traffic and control the inflow and outflow of traffic according to predefined rules. Firewalls detect and block unauthorized access and attacks, protecting systems from malicious attacks and data leaks. In addition, firewalls also support VPN virtual private networks, provide encryption and authentication functions, and ensure the secure transmission of data on public networks; (4) Automatic backup and recovery Automatic backup: The system automatically performs backup operations every day to back up important data to a secure storage medium. The backup operation is performed when the computer is idle to avoid affecting normal business operations. During the backup process, the backup files are encrypted to prevent data leakage. Data recovery: The backup content can be restored at any time to ensure that business operations can be quickly restored in the event of system failure or data loss. The recovery process is simple and fast. You only need to select the backup file to be restored and perform the recovery operation.

8. A method for implementing performance appraisal of hospital functional departments, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1, obtain the quantitative assessment indicators pre-stored in the database and decompose and allocate the quantitative assessment indicators to the responsible functional departments. The corresponding quantitative assessment indicators are set with agreed annual target values ​​and have different assessment scores; S2. Collect and store the completion information of the quantitative assessment indicators corresponding to each responsible functional department. The collection methods include automatic capture by the system and manual input and reporting; S3. Extract the information of the actual value of the assessment indicator and compare it with the target value. Mark the assessment indicators that fail to meet the target and remind the corresponding authorized users to deduct points. The reason for deduction is recorded as "xx indicator fails to meet the target"; S4. Enter user evaluations, establish different evaluation interfaces for hospital leaders’ evaluations, functional departments’ mutual evaluations, and clinical departments’ evaluations, and display the evaluation deduction rules. Perform data review when entering evaluations, match corresponding scoring weights for different evaluators, and store the evaluations after submission. S5. According to the preset mathematical model, different assessment dimensions are assigned weights for different assessment objects, and the average assessment scores of hospital leaders, clinical departments, and functional departments are automatically calculated, and the final scores are calculated according to the weight rules; the mathematical model includes: Calculation model for the average score of hospital leaders’ assessment: Calculation model for average score of clinical department assessment: Calculation model for average score of internal assessment of functional departments Final score calculation model: S=ω L ·L+ω C ·C+ω F ·F The variables are defined as follows: L i : The score of the i-th hospital leader, i = 1, 2, ..., l; ω Li : The weight of the i-th hospital leader is different for the principal and deputy positions; F j : The score of the jth functional department, j = 1, 2, ..., f, and each functional department has equal weight; C k : The score of the kth clinical department, k = 1, 2, ..., m, where m is the number of clinical departments participating in the scoring each month, and each clinical department has equal weight; ω L : The weight of the average score of the hospital leaders' assessment; ω C : The weight of the average score of clinical assessment; ω F : The weight of the average score of mutual evaluation among functional departments; S: final score of the functional department; in, Define the weights of hospital leadership assessment, functional department assessment, and clinical department assessment L +ω C + oh F =1; Weight ω L ,ω C ,ω F According to the actual situation of the hospital and the assessment target setting; S6. Display the assessment results, including the scores of each functional department and the reasons for deductions. Set different viewing permissions according to different positions, allowing the heads of functional departments to query the scores of their departments, allowing hospital leaders and system administrators to query the scores of all functional departments, and export the assessment result report; S7. Connect the assessment results with the hospital's performance management system to automatically associate the assessment results with actual performance, and automatically adjust the performance distribution of functional departments based on the final scores; The actual performance calculation formula is as follows: The variables are defined as follows: P: the expected performance of the functional department, A: The actual performance of the functional department, S m : The highest score of the functional department this month, S: final score of the functional department; S8. Conduct statistical analysis on the assessment data and generate reports to display the current indicator completion status of each functional department and the comparison with the target value in the form of charts and data tables to provide decision-making support for hospital management.

Images