辐射防护 ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (6): 540-547.

• 辐射防护标准与规定 • 上一篇    下一篇

常见放射性疾病诊断标准跟踪评价结果——放射卫生监督人员

马娅1, 侯殿俊1, 毛雪松1, 刘伟1, 王宪凯2   

  1. 1.山东省医学科学院放射医学研究所,山东 济南 250062;
    2. 山东省济宁市第一人民医院,山东 济宁 272000
  • 收稿日期:2021-12-21 出版日期:2022-11-20 发布日期:2023-01-05
  • 通讯作者: 王宪凯。E-mail:565495957@qq.com
  • 作者简介:马娅(1978—),女,2001年毕业于苏州大学放射医学专业,2008年毕业于山东省医学科学院放射医学专业,获硕士学位,2022年毕业于中国原子能科学研究院辐射防护及环境保护专业,获博士学位,助理研究员。E-mail:maya347@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家卫生健康委法规司常见职业性放射性疾病诊断标准实施评估项目。

Follow-up evaluation of diagnostic criteria for common radiation diseases ——Radiological health supervisors

MA Ya1, HOU Dianjun1, MAO Xuesong1, LIU Wei1, WANG Xiankai2   

  1. 1. School of Preventive Medicine Sciences, Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Shandong Jinan 250062;
    2. The first People's Hospital of Jining, Shandong Province, Shandong Jining 272000
  • Received:2021-12-21 Online:2022-11-20 Published:2023-01-05

摘要: 依据 WS/T 536—2017《卫生标准跟踪评价工作指南》,通过问卷调查我国7个省的337名放射卫生监督人员对现行的5个常见放射性疾病的诊断标准的掌握、理解和使用情况。调查结果显示,放射卫生监督人员对常见放射性疾病的诊断标准知晓、熟悉、理解和应用程度有待提高,仅47.5%(160)的放射卫生监督人员知道全部5个放射病诊断标准,18.4%(62)的放射卫生监督人员仅知道其中的一项标准。60%的人员接受过《职业性外照射急性放射病诊断》标准的培训或宣贯,而《职业性放射性白内障的诊断》标准仅4%的人员接受过培训或宣贯;接近60%的被调查人员在执行卫生监督工作中应用到各项常用诊断标准,但引用频次大多为一年一次;92%以上的被调查监督人员认为各项诊断标准条款与现行国家职业病防治相关法律法规和标准的要求协调一致;各项标准均有低于20%的被调查人员认为不可行;超过50%的监督机构无职业病诊断标准专项管理配套经费;仅198(58.75%)名被调查人员的监督机构对诊断机构进行了质量管理专项监督;主观性问题调查中,仅不到20%的被调查人员给出了调查意见。应加强对放射卫生监督人员诊断标准宣贯和培训力度,提高放射卫生监督人员对标准的应用能力。卫生监督机构应加大经费投入,加强对放射诊断机构的专项监督工作,建立有效的反馈机制。

关键词: 放射性疾病, 诊断标准, 卫生监督人员, 调查

Abstract: According to WS/T 536—2017, “Health Standards Tracking and Evaluation Work Guide.”, 337 radiation health supervisors in 7 provinces of China were polled via questionnaires, regarding their knowledge, comprehension, and application of the current diagnostic criteria for 5 prevalent radiological diseases. Only 47.5 percent (160) of radiation health supervisors are familiar with all five diagnostic criteria for radiological diseases, and 18.4 percent (62) of them are only familiar with one of the criteria, indicating the need for improvement in knowledge, familiarity, understanding, and application of these criteria by radiation health supervisors. The standard “Diagnosis of Acute Radiation Diseases from Occupational External Exposure” has been trained or disseminated to 60% of the health supervisors, whereas the standard “Diagnosis of Occupational Radiation Cataract” has been disseminated only to 4% of the health supervisors. When completing health monitoring duties, about 60% of the respondents used the conventional diagnostic criteria, but citations typically occurred once a year. More than 92% of the supervisors who responded to the survey thought that the diagnostic criteria are in line with the requirements of the prevailing national laws, rules, and standards for occupational disease prevention and treatment. For each criterion, less than 20% of respondents said it wasn’t feasible. More than 50% of supervisory institutions lacks specialized management support funds for occupational disease diagnosis requirements. Only 198 (58.75%) of the respondents’ institutions engaged in specific supervision of diagnostic institutions’ quality management. Less than 20% of respondents to the subjective question survey gave their opinion on the survey. We should increase training and dissemination of diagnostic criteria for radiation health supervisory staff in order to enhance their capacity to implement the standards. Health supervision agencies should increase funding to strengthen special supervision of radiological diagnostic institutions and establish an effective feedback mechanism.

Key words: radiation disease, diagnostic criteria, health supervisor, investigate

中图分类号: 

  • R141