Medical dispute smart cloud evaluation system

Abstract

The invention relates to a medical dispute smart cloud evaluation and analysis system. The system comprises a doctor-patient relationship end, a quality management end, an evaluation expert end and a cloud platform which are connected with one another, the doctor-patient relationship end is used for a patient to log in, and is used for the patient to select a complained doctor and an evaluation expert and participate in an evaluation conference of the cloud platform; the quality management terminal allows the quality management personnel to log in, the quality management personnel communicate with the complained physician to form a field report, and the quality management personnel uploads the field report to the cloud platform through the quality management terminal; the complained physician terminal is used for the complained physician to log in and is used for participating in the evaluation conference; the evaluation expert end is used for the evaluation experts to log in, the selected evaluation experts check the on-site report through the evaluation expert end, an evaluation conference is created on the cloud platform, the evaluation experts give evaluation suggestions in the evaluation conference, and the cloud platform generates evaluation results according to the evaluation suggestions. The system uses the modern informatization technology to digitalize and intellectualize the medical dispute processing process, and the processing efficiency and fairness are greatly improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of medical technology, and more specifically, to a medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system. Background Art

[0002] With the continuous advancement of medical technology and the increasing complexity of medical services, the number of medical disputes has shown an upward trend year by year. The handling of medical disputes not only involves the interests of medical institutions and patients, but also concerns the harmony and stability of society.

[0003] Currently, hospitals use traditional offline meetings to discuss and assess responsibility and the nature of medical incidents. This approach presents several drawbacks: face-to-face discussions between assessment experts and the departments / medical staff involved, as well as the characterization and assessment of responsibility, often involve concerns about personal relationships and reputation. These reservations can influence the final decision. Furthermore, this traditional approach to resolving medical disputes, such as medical evaluations and legal proceedings, is often time-consuming, costly, and prone to secondary disputes.

[0004] Furthermore, due to the professionalism and complexity of medical disputes, traditional in-hospital assessment methods often suffer from inefficiencies and lack of fairness, leading to an increasing trust crisis between patients and medical institutions and failing to meet the current needs of medical dispute resolution. Therefore, how to build an efficient, fair, and transparent medical dispute assessment system is the technical problem to be solved in this application. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In response to the shortcomings of the existing technology, the present invention proposes a medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system, which uses modern information technology to digitize and intelligentize the process of handling medical disputes, greatly improving the processing efficiency and fairness.

[0006] The present invention provides a medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system, the technical solution of which is as follows: A medical dispute intelligent cloud evaluation and analysis system, which includes an interconnected doctor-patient relationship terminal, a quality control terminal, an evaluation expert terminal and a cloud platform; The doctor-patient relationship terminal is used for patients to log in, select the complained physician and assessment experts, and participate in the evaluation meeting of the cloud platform; The quality control terminal is used for quality control personnel to log in. The quality control personnel communicate with the complained physician to form an on-site report. The quality control personnel upload the on-site report to the cloud platform through the quality control terminal. The complained physician's terminal is used for the complained physician to log in and participate in the review meeting; The assessment expert terminal is for assessment experts to log in. The selected assessment experts view the on-site report through the assessment expert terminal and create an assessment meeting on the cloud platform. The assessment experts give assessment opinions in the assessment meeting, and the cloud platform generates assessment results based on the assessment opinions.

[0007] In summary, the above technical solution has the following beneficial effects: The medical dispute intelligent cloud-based evaluation system of this application allows patients to freely select evaluation experts and engage in discussions with them through evaluation meetings. During these meetings, the evaluation experts can provide fair and objective evaluation opinions without having to consider the reputation of the physician being complained about. The final evaluation results are automatically generated based on the cloud platform, making the evaluation more efficient and fair. This application provides new ideas and solutions for handling medical disputes. This system utilizes modern information technology to digitize and intelligentize the medical dispute handling process, greatly improving handling efficiency and fairness. It deeply explores the root causes of medical disputes and provides medical institutions with targeted improvement measures. The establishment of this system is not only an innovation in traditional medical dispute handling methods, but also an important supplement to physicians' self-monitoring and self-improvement of medical behavior. It breaks down the personal barriers that have traditionally existed in medical dispute handling and ensures fairness in the evaluation process. Furthermore, through the use of the intelligent cloud platform, the entire medical dispute handling process can be monitored and traced, ensuring that every step of the process is well-documented and well-regulated. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0008] Figure 1 A cloud platform diagram of a medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system; Figure 2 A diagram showing the degree of responsibility of a medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the physician-side homepage of a medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system; Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the public end of a medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system; Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the doctor-patient relationship end of a medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system.

[0009] Figure numerals: 10, doctor-patient relationship end; 20, quality control end; 30, assessment expert end; 40, cloud platform; 50, medical end; 60, public end. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0010] The following is a clear and complete description of the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative efforts are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0011] A smart cloud-based medical dispute analysis system includes an interconnected doctor-patient relationship terminal 10, a quality control terminal 20, an assessment expert terminal 30, and a cloud platform 40; the doctor-patient relationship terminal 10 is used for patients to log in, and is used for patients to select the complained physician and the assessment expert, and to participate in the assessment meeting of the cloud platform 40; the quality control terminal 20 is used for quality control personnel to log in, and the quality control personnel and the complained physician communicate to form an on-site report, and the quality control personnel upload the on-site report to the cloud platform 40 through the quality control terminal 20; the complained physician terminal is used for the complained physician to log in, and is used to participate in the assessment meeting; the assessment expert terminal 30 is used for assessment experts to log in, and the selected assessment experts view the on-site report through the assessment expert terminal 30, and create an assessment meeting on the cloud platform 40, in which the assessment experts give assessment opinions, and the cloud platform 40 generates assessment results based on the assessment opinions. The medical dispute intelligent cloud-based evaluation system proposed in this application allows patients to freely select their own evaluation experts and engage in discussions with them through evaluation meetings. During these meetings, the evaluation experts can provide fair and objective evaluations without having to consider the reputation of the physician being complained about. The final evaluation results are automatically generated based on the cloud platform 40, making the evaluation more efficient and fair. This application provides new insights and solutions for handling medical disputes. This system leverages modern information technology to digitize and intelligentize the medical dispute handling process, significantly improving efficiency and fairness. It also deeply explores the root causes of medical disputes and provides medical institutions with targeted improvement measures. The establishment of this system is not only an innovation in traditional medical dispute handling methods, but also an important supplement to physicians' self-monitoring and self-improvement of their medical behavior. It breaks down the personal barriers that previously existed in medical dispute handling and ensures fairness in the evaluation process. Furthermore, through the use of the intelligent cloud platform 40, the entire medical dispute handling process can be monitored and traced, ensuring that every step of the process is documented and follows procedures.

[0012] It also includes a medical terminal 50, which is used by medical staff to log in and communicate with patients through the medical terminal 50. The medical terminal 50 and the doctor-patient relationship terminal 10 can be remotely connected, so that patients can communicate with relevant medical staff of the hospital, connect materials and other matters, and are also used for feedback afterwards. Specialized medical staff in the hospital are responsible for the handover work, thereby improving the efficiency of adjustment. The quality control terminal 20 and the medical terminal 50 are personnel in the hospital who are specifically responsible for medical disputes. The quality control personnel of the quality control terminal 20 are used to collect on-site reports from the doctors who have been complained about, and are responsible for guiding the doctors who have been complained about in the process, record and other docking work at the meeting. The medical staff of the medical terminal 50 are used to connect with external patients, and are responsible for guiding the patients in the process of meeting and the collection and recording of materials and other docking work.

[0013] Cloud platform 40 is equipped with a voice changer to change the voices of participants in the review meeting. The Doctor-Patient Relations Department will select relevant review experts from the assessment specialist database to conduct in-depth analysis and assessment of medical dispute cases. The physician facing the complaint will then present an offline report on the disputed case. Experts from the Medical Dispute Review Expert Committee will then ask questions about issues encountered throughout the medical process via cloud platform 40, using voice-changed voices. The physician facing the complaint will not be able to identify the review experts. The meeting will be automatically recorded and text minutes will be intelligently generated. After the online assessment, the review experts will complete their comments online, and the content of the review form will be integrated into the medical dispute complaint platform.

[0014] Based on the evaluation, cloud platform 40 generates penalty information and accountability information for the physician involved in the complaint, and generates medical quality issue information for the patient as feedback. Through systematic analysis, a preliminary case characterization can be made, providing a scientific and objective basis for negotiations between doctors and patients. This not only helps resolve existing disputes but also provides a reference for similar situations that may arise in the future, thereby playing a positive role in doctor-patient communication. Penalty measures not only hold the physician responsible for their medical behavior, but more importantly, they serve as a warning, reminding the parties involved and other medical practitioners to pay sufficient attention to the standardization and safety of medical practices. This approach can effectively enhance professional ethics and safety awareness throughout the medical industry, thereby reducing the occurrence of medical accidents and protecting the rights of patients. Cloud platform 40 integrates artificial intelligence to analyze the evaluation opinions and determine penalty information and accountability information for the physician involved in the complaint. Penalty information includes internal notification and suspension of medical privileges. The duration of suspension is determined by the degree of responsibility, with the greater the degree of responsibility, the longer the suspension.

[0015] The quality control terminal 20 is used to store information on medical quality issues related to various disputes within the cloud platform 40 and supervise doctors within the hospital based on these medical quality issues. Through this evaluation system, the quality control terminal 20 can effectively identify various loopholes and deficiencies in medical work, thereby making necessary adjustments and optimizations from a system perspective in a timely manner. Such measures help prevent the recurrence of similar medical incidents and thus better protect patient medical safety. In particular, the departments complained against by the complained doctors are closely related, so they are the focus of supervision, while other departments are informed of the penalties through internal notifications.

[0016] The system also includes a public terminal 60 connected to the cloud platform 40. This terminal is used to publicly disclose complaint incidents and allows the public to log in and view complaint incidents, thereby allowing the public to participate in evaluation and form public opinions. The cloud platform 40 generates penalty information and accountability information based on the evaluation opinions and public opinions. While the evaluation experts assess the incident from a professional perspective, there may be cases where patients are dissatisfied. Therefore, the public terminal 60 can be used to allow the public to participate in the evaluation of the medical incident and jointly determine responsibility with the experts' evaluation opinions.

[0017] Through the doctor-patient relationship terminal 10, the patient chooses whether to make their complaint public on the public terminal 60. This public terminal 60 includes an information hiding module, which conceals private information related to the complaint. If the patient is dissatisfied with the expert's assessment, they can choose to make the complaint public through the public terminal 60, thereby allowing the public to participate in the evaluation of the medical experience. This empowers patients and prevents experts from favoring the hospital. The information hiding module automatically anonymizes private information in the complaint, such as the hospital name, the name of the physician being complained about, and the patient's name, allowing the public to evaluate the complaint from a third-party perspective.

[0018] Public terminal 60 is equipped with a login module and a browsing module. The login module is used for public login, and the browsing module is used to anonymize public complaint events and randomly arrange them on different public login modules. The browsing module also limits the number of times each public login module can be viewed per day. After the public logs in to their account through the login module, the browsing module will display the public complaint events to be evaluated. Each complaint event will be anonymously and randomly arranged on different public accounts. The public can only see the anonymous numbers of different complaint events. The public can randomly select a complaint event to browse and participate in the evaluation. Each complaint event can only be viewed once per account, and each account can only view one complaint event per day, thereby preventing patients from using connections to manipulate public opinion.

[0019] The cloud platform 40 is configured with a factor of public opinion, and the cloud platform 40 obtains the degree of responsibility according to the following relationship: Among them, S is the degree of responsibility of the physician complained against to the patient, A is the responsibility division of the expert evaluation opinion, B is the responsibility division of the public opinion, and the ratio of the responsibility division is the physician complained against to the patient. α is the proportion factor of the public opinion. The proportion factor of the public opinion is controlled to be greater than zero and less than 0.5. Therefore, judging the complaint incident from the perspective of the public lacks professionalism. So the proportion factor is less than 0.5. It can provide a means of countermeasure for the patient, but it does not play a decisive role. For example, if the responsibility division of the expert evaluation opinion A is the physician complained against to the patient equal to 6:4, and the responsibility division of the public opinion B is the physician complained against to the patient equal to 7:3, and the proportion factor of the public opinion is equal to 0.4, then the degree of responsibility obtained by the cloud platform 40 is the physician complained against to the patient equal to 11:6.

[0020] When the cloud platform 40 judges that the responsibility division of the public opinion is less favorable to the patient than the responsibility division of the expert evaluation opinion, the degree of responsibility is only generated according to the expert evaluation opinion. Specifically, when A > B, then α = 0. For example, if the responsibility division of the expert evaluation opinion A is the physician complained against to the patient equal to 6:4, and the responsibility division of the public opinion B is the physician complained against to the patient equal to 4:6, then the proportion factor of the public opinion is equal to 0, and the degree of responsibility obtained by the cloud platform 40 is divided according to the responsibility of the physician complained against to the patient equal to 6:4 according to the expert evaluation opinion A. Because the public opinion lacks professionalism, if the public opinion is more unfavorable to the patient than the expert opinion, the public opinion is not considered to avoid greater losses to the patient caused by the public opinion.

[0021] Furthermore, the responsibility division is carried out in a ten-point scale. When the cloud platform 40 judges that the responsibility division of the public opinion is more favorable to the patient than the responsibility division of the expert evaluation opinion, the more favorable the responsibility division of the public opinion is to the patient than the responsibility division of the expert evaluation opinion, the larger α is and the closer it is to 0.5; the more unfavorable the responsibility division of the public opinion is to the patient than the responsibility division of the expert evaluation opinion, the smaller α is and the closer it is to 0. The degree of responsibility S obtained by the cloud platform 40 is calculated and may not be in a ten-point scale. The proportion factor α of the public opinion is dynamically adjusted between 0 and 0.5, and the achieved effect is that the closer the responsibility division of the public opinion and the responsibility division of the expert evaluation opinion are, the closer α is to 0. Specifically, when A < B, Among them, is the value of the physician complained against in the responsibility division of the ten-point expert evaluation opinion, is the value of the physician complained against in the responsibility division of the ten-point public opinion. Because A < B, so The range of is 1 - 4, The ratio ranges from 6 to 9. When the expert opinion A is split between the complained physician and the patient at a ratio of 1:9, and the public opinion B is split between the complained physician and the patient at a ratio of 9:1, α reaches a maximum of 0.45. When the expert opinion A is split between the complained physician and the patient at a ratio of 4:6, and the public opinion B is split between the complained physician and the patient at a ratio of 6:4, α reaches a minimum of 0.3. When A = B, α = 0.5 or 0 is acceptable. By dynamically adjusting the weighting factor α, the greater the divergence between public opinion and price increase assessment, the greater the weighting factor for public opinion, thereby allowing public opinion to play a greater role and avoiding public dissatisfaction.

[0022] The Medical Dispute Intelligent Cloud Evaluation System utilizes information systems, big data analysis, cloud platforms 40, voice changers and other technologies. The evaluation process uses single-blind technology to ensure the efficiency and timeliness of the evaluation process. This system aims to deeply analyze the real problems and shortcomings in medical dispute cases, comprehensively analyze the causes, find out the crux of the problem, learn from it, continuously strengthen internal management, do the work in a detailed and practical manner, carry out criticism and self-criticism with the courage to turn the knife inward and the determination to scrape the bone to cure the poison, promote reform through cases, comprehensively improve and continuously improve medical quality, and ensure medical safety.

[0023] The Medical-Patient Relations Department will select relevant evaluation experts from the evaluation specialist database to conduct in-depth analysis and evaluation of medical dispute cases. The complained physician will report on the dispute case offline. Experts from the Medical Dispute Analysis Expert Committee will then ask questions about problems in the entire medical process on the cloud platform after changing their voices. The complained physician will not be able to identify the identification expert and will have to answer questions offline.

[0024] After discussing the case on the DingTalk platform, all assessment experts completed their own assessment forms, which were then integrated into the medical dispute complaint platform. The expert panel analyzed and assessed the dispute cases objectively, impartially, and pragmatically, encouraging medical staff to "blush and sweat," detoxify, treat illnesses, and strengthen their immunity. This initiative aims to raise awareness of deficiencies in medical care, continuously improve medical safety awareness, standardize medical practices, strictly enforce all rules and regulations, and rigorously control the quality of medical processes, proactively preventing and rectifying deficiencies and weaknesses.

[0025] The system is described in detail as follows: Figure 3As shown in the figure, the physician homepage centrally displays core information and convenient access points for all assessment meetings within the platform. Users can quickly find specific meetings using the "Search" function or initiate a new one by clicking the "Create Meeting" button. The main page clearly displays multiple meeting entries in a list format, each including the meeting name, specific time, number of attendees, and current status, making it easy for users to efficiently manage, find, and participate in various medical dispute assessment meetings. As shown in the figure, in the meeting module, users can easily create assessment meetings and set parameters. They can also invite experts to join via links or invitation codes, enabling remote real-time communication and discussion. Records of all meetings are automatically saved to the meeting history. Users can quickly locate specific meetings through search or filtering, review content and conclusions, and facilitate subsequent review or supplemental information. This design fully adapts to the multi-party and cross-regional collaboration characteristics of medical dispute assessment, significantly improving work flexibility and responsiveness. Clicking the "Create Meeting" button will open a creation panel on the right, allowing users to set the meeting name, time, attendees, associated forms, and privacy options such as anonymity / voice change. Click the "Join Meeting" button, and the system will display a list of meetings that the current user can attend in the right panel (including meetings for the current day and the next day). Users can select "Join Meeting" to attend the meeting directly, or perform the "Form Report" operation. After clicking "Join Meeting", the page will display all participating members. Users can independently set the on / off status of the microphone and video, and operate the screen recording or chat room function. Physicians can view past meeting records, including "canceled" and "ended" meetings, and can confirm their own meeting status (such as whether they have participated). At the same time, historical meetings can be quickly located through the search function in the upper right corner.

[0026] As an important supplement to the meeting process, the screen recording module can record the complete video content of each meeting. The recorded video is encrypted and stored in the cloud, which ensures data security while being convenient for authorized personnel to review at any time. This function not only overcomes the shortcomings of paper records that are prone to omissions and deviations, but also provides an unalterable original basis for potential disputes, effectively ensuring the fairness and traceability of the assessment process. Users can quickly retrieve the required screen recording files based on factors such as meeting time and subject, and the platform provides online playback function. Physicians can view all meeting screen recordings of each user and select relevant screen recordings to watch online. At the same time, the search function in the upper right corner is used to quickly find the required screen recording. This page displays the meeting screen recordings operated by the physician himself. You can select relevant screen recordings to watch online, and the search function in the upper right corner is used to quickly find the required content.

[0027] The form module is divided into "To-do Forms" and "Completed Forms" to improve processing efficiency and information management clarity. In the "Completed Forms", you can view the meeting name, form name, and reporting time. Click "Details" to view all the contents; the "To-do Forms" supports one-click batch submission by checking multiple records. From batch submission of to-do items to automatic transfer to completed items, and then to tracing back records through details, an efficient closed loop is formed to ensure the smooth processing of medical dispute assessment tasks, and provide complete, reliable and easy-to-retrieve data for subsequent review, tracing, and statistics, meeting process specifications and data traceability requirements. This page displays a list of completed forms, including meeting name, form name, and reporting time. Users can click the "Details" button to view the specific content of the form, or use the search function in the upper right corner to quickly locate the target completed items. In the to-do form, users can check multiple records for batch submission. At the same time, the search function in the upper right corner can be used to quickly locate the target to-do items.

[0028] like Figure 4 As shown, the public end uses a structured list design to clearly display data from the entire complaint process. Each record contains six core fields: complaint issue classification, detailed description text, name of the doctor being complained about, contact information, contact number, and real-time processing status (such as "pending," "processing," "resolved," and "closed"). The public can click the "Details" button to view a complete traceback of the processing process, including work order flow records, feedback from the handler, and the final resolution. This design ensures data integrity and searchability through standardized fields. Real-time status updates and process traceability form a closed-loop management system, enhancing service transparency and user trust.

[0029] like Figure 5 As shown, on the doctor-patient side of the page: When a user clicks the "Complaint Feedback" button, an intelligent complaint creation panel will pop up on the right side of the page. This panel features a user-friendly design, including required fields such as complaint issue classification, detailed issue description, selection of the physician involved, contact information, and phone number, making the entire complaint submission process simple and clear. When a user clicks the "Complaint History" button, an intelligent complaint record display panel will expand on the right side of the system. This panel uses an intuitive card-style layout, with each card clearly displaying key complaint information: complaint issue classification, detailed description, name of the physician involved, submission time, and current processing status (such as "pending," "processing," "processed," or "closed"). The card design uses color to distinguish different statuses, combined with a simple visual hierarchy, ensuring that users can quickly locate key information. All complaint records support keyword and status filtering, helping users efficiently review historical complaint records. This visual display significantly improves information acquisition efficiency and provides a clear overview of complaint progress.

[0030] The above are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention. The scope of protection of the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. All technical solutions based on the principles of the present invention are within the scope of protection of the present invention. It should be noted that improvements and modifications that do not depart from the principles of the present invention are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system, characterized by: It includes a doctor-patient relationship terminal (10), a quality control terminal (20), an assessment expert terminal (30) and a cloud platform (40) that are interconnected; The doctor-patient relationship terminal (10) is used for patients to log in, to select the complained physician and the evaluation expert, and to participate in the evaluation meeting of the cloud platform (40); The quality control terminal (20) is used for quality control personnel to log in, and the quality control personnel communicate with the complained physician to form an on-site report, and the quality control personnel upload the on-site report to the cloud platform (40) through the quality control terminal (20); The complained physician terminal is used for the complained physician to log in and participate in the review meeting; The assessment expert terminal (30) is used for assessment experts to log in. The selected assessment experts view the on-site report through the assessment expert terminal (30) and create an assessment meeting on the cloud platform (40). The assessment experts give assessment opinions in the assessment meeting, and the cloud platform (40) generates assessment results based on the assessment opinions.

2. A medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The device also includes a medical terminal (50), which is used for medical personnel to log in and communicate with patients through the medical terminal (50).

3. A medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The cloud platform (40) is provided with a voice changer, and the voice changer is used to change the voices of people participating in the review meeting.

4. A medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The cloud platform (40) generates penalty information and responsibility level information for the complained physician based on the evaluation opinion, and generates medical quality problem information for the patient as feedback.

5. A medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 4, characterized in that: The quality control terminal (20) is used to store the medical quality problem information of each dispute in the cloud platform (40), and supervise the doctors in the hospital based on the medical quality problems.

6. A medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 4, characterized in that: It also includes a public terminal (60) connected to the cloud platform (40), wherein the public terminal (60) is used to disclose complaint events and allow the public to log in to view complaint events, thereby allowing the public to participate in evaluation and form public opinions; The cloud platform (40) generates penalty information and responsibility degree information based on the evaluation opinions and public opinions.

7. A medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 6, characterized in that: The patient selects whether the corresponding complaint event should be disclosed on the public terminal (60) through the doctor-patient relationship terminal (10). The public terminal (60) is provided with an information hiding module, and the information hiding module is used to hide the private information of the complaint event.

8. The medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 6 is characterized in that: The public terminal (60) is provided with a login module and a browsing module. The login module is used for the public to log in. The browsing module is used to anonymize the public complaint events and randomly arrange them in the login modules of different publics. The browsing module is also used to limit the number of times each public's login module is browsed every day.

9. The medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 6 is characterized in that: The cloud platform (40) is provided with a proportion factor of public opinion, and the cloud platform (40) obtains the degree of responsibility according to the following relationship: Among them, S is the degree of responsibility of the complained physician: patient, A is the division of responsibility for expert evaluation opinions, B is the division of responsibility for public opinions, and α is the proportion factor of public opinions.

10. A medical dispute intelligent cloud analysis system according to claim 9, characterized in that: When the cloud platform (40) determines that the division of responsibilities based on public opinion is less favorable to the patient than the division of responsibilities based on expert evaluation opinions, the degree of responsibility is generated based only on the expert evaluation opinions.

Images