两种中心静脉输液技术经济学评价指标的构建

doi:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2019.12.018

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的构建PICC和植入式静脉输液港（implantable venous access port,PORT）静脉输液技术效果评价指标体系及综合效果指数。方法采用德尔菲法,通过2轮专家咨询,确定评价两种中心静脉输液技术效果的指标体系及权重。之后通过综合指数法,对指标体系中的指标按指数化公式进行指数化,最终根据综合指数公式,构建能综合评价两种中心静脉输液效果的综合效果指数。结果 2轮专家咨询的问卷回收率均为100%,专家权威系数为0.87。第1轮和第2轮整体指标的肯德尔协调系数分别为0.283、0.306（均P<0.001）。形成了两种中心静脉输液技术效果评价指标体系,包含3项一级指标、9项二级指标、13项三级指标。根据指数化公式及综合指数公式,最终构建了两种中心静脉输液技术的综合效果指数。结论本研究构建的两种中心静脉输液技术效果评价指标及综合效果指数具有较好的科学性、可靠性和实用性,为决策者和管理者从整体上评价2种技术的综合输液效果提供了量化的方法。

关键词: 经外周置入中心静脉导管, 植入式静脉输液港, 德尔菲技术, 综合指数法, 评价指标, 经济学评价

Abstract:

Objective To establish an evaluation index system and an effectiveness index for PICC and PORT. Methods The Delphi method was adopted to identify the indicators and their weight coefficients in the evaluation index system for evaluating PICC and PORT through two rounds of expert consultation. Then the effectiveness index for evaluating the effect of PICC and PORT was established based on the synthetical index method. Results The responses rates of two rounds of Delphi consultation were all 100%. The experts’ authoritative coefficient was 0.87. The coordination coefficients of the two rounds of Delphi consultation were 0.283 and 0.306（both of them P<0.001）. The evaluation index system for evaluating the effect of PICC and PORT was established,including 3 primary indicators,9 secondary indicators,and 13 tertiary indicators. Then the effectiveness index for evaluating the effect of PICC and PORT was established based on exponential formula and synthetical index formula. Conclusion The established evaluation index system and the effectiveness index for evaluating the effect of PICC and PORT are scientific,reliable and feasible,providing a quantitative method for decision makers and administrators to make holistic comparison of the effect of PICC and PORT.

Key words: Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter, Implantable Venous Access Port, Delphi Technique, Synthetical Index Method, Evaluation Index, Economic Evaluation

王凯蓉, 周英凤, 张晓菊, 陆箴琦, 薛嵋, 王丽英. 两种中心静脉输液技术经济学评价指标的构建[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2019, 54(12): 1856-1861.

WANG Kairong, ZHOU Yingfeng, ZHANG Xiaoju, LU Zhenqi, XUE Mei, WANG Liying. Establishment of effectiveness index for two types of central venous access devices on economic evaluation[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing, 2019, 54(12): 1856-1861.

图/表 3

参考文献 19

[1]	中华护理学会静脉输液治疗专业委员会. 临床静脉导管维护操作专家共识[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2019,54(9):1334-1342.
[2]	王影新, 刘飞, 赵璇 , 等. 乳腺癌化疗患者不同部位植入输液港的对比研究[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2019,54(6):917-921.
[3]	孙红, 王蕾, 关欣 , 等. 全国部分三级甲等医院静脉治疗护理现状分析[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2014,49(10):1232-1237.
[4]	周英凤, 胡雁, 张晓菊 , 等. PICC输液技术有效性及安全性评估的系统评价再评价[J]. 护理学杂志, 2016,31(7):90-94.
[5]	Patel GS, Jain K, Kumar R , et al. Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies[J]. Support Care Cancer, 2014,22(1):121-128. DOI URL
[6]	Pu YL, Li ZS, Zhi XX , et al. Complications and costs of peripherally inserted central venous catheters compared with implantable port catheters for cancer patients:a meta-analysis[J]. Cancer Nurs, 2019. DOI URL PMID
[7]	Duclos M, Orsini C, Fuss D , et al. Port catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer:a cost-effectiveness analysis[J]. Value Health, 2017,20(9):A583.
[8]	Moss JG, Paul J, Wu O , et al. Cancer and venous access (CAVA):a randomised controlled trial with associated qualitative research of venous access devices for delivering long-term chemotherapy[J]. Cardiovasc Inter Rad, 2017,40(2):S142-S143.
[9]	尚磊 . 卫生管理统计学[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2014.
[10]	欧伟麟, 沈欢瑜, 欧文森 , 等. 基于德尔菲法的广东省全科团队家庭医生式签约服务绩效考核指标体系构建研究[J]. 中国全科医学, 2018,21(7):795-799.
[11]	张嵘, 商临萍, 苏丹霞 , 等. 德尔菲法构建感染管理专职人员核心能力评价指标体系[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2017,27(10):2382-2385.
[12]	孙振球, 王乐三 . 综合评价方法及其医学应用[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2014.
[13]	周英凤 . 社区孕产妇基本保健适宜技术研究[D]. 上海:复旦大学, 2010.
[14]	伍志刚, 沈敏学, 孙振球 , 等. 综合评价方法在湖南省三甲医院服务质量评价中的应用[J]. 中国现代医学杂志, 2012,22(8):98-101.
[15]	谢建梅, 王曙红, 谭江红 . PICC置管患者舒适度研究进展[J]. 齐鲁护理杂志, 2016,22(13):52-53.
[16]	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,National Institutes of Health,National Cancer Institute.Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events（CTCAE） Version 5.0[EB/OL]. ( 2017 -11-27)[2019-07-01]. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_ Reference_8.5x11.pdf.
[17]	Robinson A, Souied O, Bota AB , et al. Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer:a systematic review[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2018,171(3):607-620. DOI URL PMID
[18]	陈文, 刘国祥, 江启成 , 等. 卫生经济学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2017.
[19]	Fang S, Yang J, Song L , et al. Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy[J]. Patient Prefer Adher, 2017,11:1197-1204. DOI URL PMID