教学医院学科人才绩效评价体系的构建与应用研究

目的：建立临床医学院学科人才绩效评价体系，促进临床医学院人才建设，提高学科人才管理水平。方法：运用系统方法、层次分析方法、专家咨询法、权值因子判断表法等建立绩效评价指标体系，并在某临床医学院实测应用，反馈验证评价体系的可靠性和科学性。结果：经实测应用，此体系对学科人才的评估总分呈正态分布，一、二级指标区分度较高，三级指标独立性强，其变量间相关率(经偏相关纠正)为2．67％。结论：此评价体系有较强的可靠性和科学性，具有一定的创新性，能综合评价学科人才的绩效水平。     

关于河南中医学院设置健康保险专业的思考

目的：探讨河南中医学院设置健康保险专业的论证。方法：从我国健康保险业的发展实际出发，集中分析河南中医学院设置健康保险专业的必要性，论证了河南中医学院在师资、设施、生源与就业等方面的可行性，以培养目标、课程设置和实习基地建设为轴线，提出了设置健康保险专业的建议。结果与结论：河南中医学院设置健康保险专业有必要、有可行性、有优势。     

Providing Interdisciplinary Geriatric Team Care: What Does It Really Take?

We concur with Speer and Schneider's arguments (2003 ; this issue) that more psychologists should offer mental health services to older adults and that the primary care system is a good focus of such efforts. Three issues deserve more prominence in their review. First, their argument that older adults are averse to mental health services seems incorrect, given research indicating that older adults prefer psychotherapy to medication for treatment of depression. Second, psychologists working in primary care need to be aware of new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes that allow documentation of psychological work in medical settings. Third, Speer and Schneider allude to interdisciplinary team functioning, but provide little information about models of team care or issues in developing a well-functioning interdisciplinary team; this commentary expands on those topics.     

A Negative Symptom Rating Scale

Renewed interest in the role of negative symptoms in "defect state" schizophrenia calls for the design of a standardized, easy to use, reliable, and valid instrument to assess these aspects of psychopathology. In order to measure negative symptoms, we developed the Negative Symptom Rating Scale (NSRS). We report on the design, interrater reliability, and construct-validation of NSRS against the most frequently used negative symptom scales or subscales. In summary, the NSRS is a short, sensitive, highly specific, reliable, and apparently valid instrument for measuring negative symptoms in schizophrenia.     

Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) remains one of the standard and most widely used methods for demonstrating construct validity of new instruments. However, the model for EFA makes assumptions which may not be applicable to all quality of life (QOL) instruments, and as a consequence the results from EFA may be misleading. In particular, EFA assumes that the underlying construct of QOL (and any postulated subscales or factors) may be regarded as being reflected by the items in those factors or subscales. QOL instruments, however, frequently contain items such as diseases, symptoms or treatment side effects, which are causal indicators. These items may cause reduction in QOL for those patients experiencing them, but the reverse relationship need not apply: not all patients with a poor QOL need be experiencing the same set of symptoms. Thus a high level of a symptom item may imply that a patient's QOL is likely to be poor, but a poor level of QOL need not imply that the patient probably suffers from that symptom. This is the reverse of the common EFA model, in which it is implicitly assumed that changes in QOL and any subscales cause or are likely to be reflected by corresponding changes in all their constituent items; thus the items in EFA are called effect indicators. Furthermore, disease-related clusters of symptoms, or treatment-induced side-effects, may result in different studies finding different sets of items being highly correlated; for example, a study involving lung cancer patients receiving surgery and chemotherapy might find one set of highly correlated symptoms, whilst prostate cancer patients receiving hormone therapy would have a very different symptom correlation structure. Since EFA is based upon analyzing the correlation matrix and assuming all items to be effect indicators, it will extract factors representing consequences of the disease or treatment. These factors are likely to vary between different patient subgroups, according to the mode of treatment or the disease type and stage. Such factors contain little information about the relationship between the items and any underlying QOL constructs. Factor analysis is largely irrelevant as a method of scale validation for those QOL instruments that contain causal indicators, and should only be used with items which are effect indicators.     

Developing community mental health services: an evaluation of Glasgow's mental health resource centres

Greater Glasgow Health Board's strategy for the development of community mental health services includes the establishment, over a 7-year period, of multi-disciplinary community mental health resource centres throughout Glasgow. An evaluation of the first phase of the development was carried out in three resource centres. This focused on three key themes: the establishment of multi-disciplinary teams, targeting of those with the most severe illnesses and the participation of users in the care process. The evaluation exercise comprised five substantive elements: analysis of the clinical database; interviews with staff within each of those centres, interviews with representatives of key external agencies associated with each centre; a survey of general practitioners; and a survey of the views of clients, their carers, their key workers, and their general practitioners (GPs). Clients were generally very satisfied with the services and felt that the resource centres met all their mental health needs. Although the majority of current centre cases had severe mental illnesses and those with the more severe conditions had the highest contact rates there was evidence that in the absence of a clear framework for referral the centres were also providing services for those with less severe illnesses. Despite a wish by centre staff to move towards modes of working less dominated by health professionals and more inclusive of other resources and especially of clients themselves, these goals remained to be achieved: there was a lack of clarity in the definition of the appropriate target groups for the centres; access to crisis support was regarded as problematic; the concept of multi-disciplinary team working had yet to be fully realized with evidence suggesting that some psychiatrists working in the resource centres had not embraced many aspects of the new approach to service delivery including a focus on the severely ill; and progress towards the ideal of active client involvement had been slow.