基于岗位胜任力的区级疾病预防控制中心公共卫生人员分类分级绩效评估指标构建

Development of classification and grading performance evaluation indicators for public health staff in district CDCs based on job competencies

  • 摘要:
    目的 探索建立区级疾病预防控制中心(简称“疾控中心”)公共卫生人员分类分级绩效评估指标,为区疾控中心对公共卫生人员进行分类分级评估提供依据。
    方法 通过文献学习及小组调研访谈,构建基于胜任力的绩效评估指标。组织专家对不同类别的公共卫生人员绩效评估指标权重进行评定,用平均数表示不同指标的权重。
    结果 29名专家来自上海高校、市疾控中心和区疾控中心,专家权威系数为0.86,科室管理者一、二、三级绩效评估指标分别为4个、16个、42个,普通科员一、二、三级绩效评估指标分别为4个、15个、36个。一级指标(内部运营、业务工作、学习和成长)在科室管理者和科员间的权重系数差异均有统计学意义。权重排前3位的科室管理者二级指标依次是科室管理、监测防控、专业水平,排前3位的中、高级科员二级指标是监测防控、专业水平、科研工作,排前3位的初级科员二级指标是监测防控、专业水平、职业态度。三级指标权重差异无统计学意义。
    结论 所构建的绩效考核评估指标可信,不同的人员应采用不同绩效评估标准进行分级分类评估,真实地反映个人的业绩和贡献。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To explore the establishment of performance assessment indicators for the classification and grading of public health staff in district-level Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCs), and to provide a basis for such evaluations.
    Methods Through literature review and group interviews, performance evaluation indicators were developed based on competency evaluation. Experts were invited to evaluate the weight of performance evaluation indicators for public health staff from different categories, with the average value used to represent the weight of each indicator.
    Results Twenty-nine experts from universities in Shanghai, municipal CDCs, and district CDCs participated, yielding an expert authority coefficient of 0.86. The performance evaluation indicators for department managers were categorized into three levels, with 4 indicators at the primary level, 16 indicators at the secondary level, and 42 indicators at the tertiary level, while those for general staff included 4 primary indicators, 15 secondary indicators, and 36 tertiary indicators. Significant differences were observed in the weight coefficients of the primary indicators (internal operations, professional work, and learning and growth) between department managers and general staff. The top three secondary indicators for department managers were department management, monitoring and prevention, and level of expertise. For mid-level and senior staff, the top three secondary indicators were monitoring and prevention, level of expertise, and research work. The top three secondary indicators for junior staff were monitoring and prevention, professional expertise, and professional attitude. No significant statistical differences were found among tertiary indicators.
    Conclusion The developed performance evaluation indicators are reliable. Staff at different levels and classifications should be evaluated using different performance evaluation standards to accurately reflect individual performance and contributions.

     

/

返回文章
返回