军队临床学科博士质量追踪评价研究

目的：通过对某军医大学一定毕业年限的临床学科博士进行评价调查，掌握其综合表现及职业发展状况，探寻和分析教育培养中的问题和不足，为深化改革提供参考。方法分层随机抽取9所军队医院，运用临床学科博士质量追踪评价指标体系及调查问卷，采取自评与他评相结合的方法进行评价调查。质量评价体系涉及军政素质、临床水平、教研水平、发展潜力4个一级指标，以及15个二级指标。自评和他评得分比较选用Pearson秩相关分析，不同学位类型博士得分比较选用方差分析，承担课题情况及论文发表情况比较选用χ^2检验。结果毕业博士综合表现优良，自评得分（92.72±7.06），他评得分（93.61±8.05），相关系数0.33（P=0.040）；科学学位博士和专业学位博士相比，在承担科研课题（χ^2=6.08，P=0.000）、发表论文（χ^2=5.97，P=0.010）方面差异有统计学意义，在完成临床工作上则相对欠缺；受评群体在承担科研项目、发表高水平论文方面均显不足；不同学位类型博士对于提升质量要素认知不同。结论深化临床学科博士教育改革应以临床能力和创新能力为核心，聚焦创新能力、重视专业学位博士教育、探索多元参与评价机制，达到促进教育质量全面提升的目的。

A tracking evaluation of the quality of clinical science doctors graduating from military medi-cal college

Objective To evaluate the level situation of clinical doctors graduating from military medical university within a certain period, understand their career development, and explore and analyze the problems and deficiencies in doctoral education and training to provide reference for deepening the reform of clinical disciplines doctoral education. Methods Stratified random samples of 9 Hospitals were selected and the established evaluation index system of clinical discipline quality tracking and investigation questionnaire was used to evaluate doctoral quality. Evaluation was surveyed by self rating and other rating combination. Quality evaluation system contains 4 first level indicators such as the military and political quality, clinical, teaching and research level, the development potential as well as 15 second-level indexes. The scores of self-assessment and other evaluation were compared by Pearson rank correlation analysis. The corresponding indicator scores of different doctorate types were compared using the test of variance and the subject research and published papers were analyzed by χ^2 inspection. Results The comprehensive score of graduated doctors is excellent, with self-evaluation score （92.72±7.06） and other evaluation score （93.61±8.05）. Correlation coefficient is 0.33（P=0.04）; The academic doctors have done better in publishing papers（χ^2=5.97, P=0.01） and undertaking subject research（χ^2=6.08, P=0.00）, but poorer in clinical work compared with the doctors of professional degree. The assessed groups are inadequate in publishing high level papers and in undertaking research projects and doctors of different degree types have different cognition of the elements of improving the quality. Conclusions Cultivating the doctors＇ clinical ability and innovation ability are the cores of deepening the reform of clinical doctoral education. We should focus on innovation ability , value the cultivation of the clinical professional doctoral degree and explore various joint evaluation