| SignificancesThe disease control and prevention system is of great importance to people’s health and the development and stability of the society. Since the foundation of our country, the disease control and prevention system has had a remarkable performance. However, now we still face a lot of challenges, such as the outbreak of new communicable diseases, rekindle of the once extinct diseases and the surging morbidity of the chronic diseases, etc. So the health reform in2009and the twelfth five-year plan of the health career development of china proposed higher request to the development of the disease control and prevention system. Facing the challenges and the requests, we still have a long way to go.Human resource is the most active and important element in the social production activities, so is it in the disease control and prevention system. As the job of disease control and prevention requires high profession and technique, a team of high-quality professionals is of great importance to the utilization of the disease control and prevention functions. However, the County-Level CDCs play an important role in the provision of the disease control and prevention work. They are at the bottom of the "nation-province-municipal-county"4-level disease control and prevention system so as to directly provide public health services to the citizens. They are also the head of the "county-town-village"3-level disease prevention system to be responsible for the organization and instruction of the disease control and prevention work. So, a well-structured team having high-quality professionals are very important to the County-Level CDCs.However, during the SARS period, many problems were exposed in the human resource management of the County-Level CDCs, such as deficiency of profesional workers, low-level education background, loss of professionals, imbalanced distribution of workforce, etc. Since then, China has increased the input to the construct of disease control and prevention system. Several years passed, whether the problems have been resolved? Whether new problems have emerged? These are all the questions that we need to answer so as to build the disease control and prevention system in the future.After systematically reviewing the relative researches, we found that many researchers had done evaluation studies on the human resource development of disease control and prevention system. However, most of the studies cover only a province or a district. Only three studies cover the whole country, while these studies did not focus on the County-Level CDCs to give a comprehensive evaluation.This paper aims to build an evaluation indicator system on the human resource of CDCs in our country, and then use it to comprehensively evaluate the human resource development of the County-Level CDCs between2005and2010. Based on that, we can find the achievement we made and weaknesses we still have. And then analyze the influencing factors of human resource development. At last, propose corresponding suggestions.Materials and MethodsBased on the Macro-Model of Health System, use the method of literature reviewing and expert consulting, to establish the evaluation indicator system.Use the methods of policy evaluation formula and standard comparison, to systematically evaluate the human resource changes of the County-Level CDCs between the year2005and2010, and find the problems. Use systematic sampling method to choose489County-Level CDCs all over the country. The data of2005comes from the three-year investigation carried by our research group (the response rate is93.7%). The data of2010comes from the disease control and prevention performance evaluation platform (the response rate is91.4%). The survey’s content covers the quantity and quality of the human resource, the flow of the human resource, the education and training status of human resource, income of the institutes, etc.Result1. The human resource evaluation indicator system of CDCsBased on the Macro-Model of Health System, using the method of literature reviewing and expert consulting, we established the human resource evaluation indicator system of CDCs, covering6dimensions (quantity, structure, quality, flow, education and training, distribution of human resource), and18quantitative indicators in total.2. The changes of human resource of County-Level CDCs in2005-2010(l)Both the absolute and relative quantity decreasedThe average quantity of human resource per institute decreased from52.2in2005to47.5in2010,9.0percent decreased. The declining trend can be seen in the east, middle and west areas. The quantity of human resource per100,000residents decreased from12.1in2005to10.0in2010,17.4percent decreased. So there is a declining trend both in the absolute and relative amount of staff in County-Level CDCs.(2) The human resource structure optimizedThe average age of the staff in County-Level CDCs increased from39.3in2005to40.8in2010, and the ratio of employees beyond50years old increased from16.3%in2005to20.3%in2010.The ratio of employees with a bachelor’s degree or above is21.1%in2010, increasing8.5percent from2005. And the ratio of emploees with a technical secondary school’s degree or below decreased from53.9%in2005to39.8%in2010.Among the staff, the employees with a major of public health comprise most, with a ratio of44.3%, increasing15.2percent from2005. And the ratio of employees without a major decreased from18.2%in2005to8.0%in2010.As to the post structure, the employees responsible for communicable disease control and prevention comprise most, with a ratio of25.8%. The testing employees come after, while only2.5%of the employees are responsible for chronic diseases. Compared with2005, the number of emploees on operational posts changed little, while the ratio of emploees for logistics dropped from9.8%to2.0%.The score of comprehensive quality had a slight increase, from4.99in2005to5.03in2010.(3)More workers flow out than in, while the quality of workers getting in is better than that flowing outIn2010, the net flow of staff in the chosen County-Level CDCs is-139. As to the education degree of the flowed workforce, more people flowed in than out in higher level education degree, and less flowed in than out in lower level education degree. As to the technical title of the flowed workforce, many people without a technical title flowed in. and people with a middle level technical title or above decreased a lot. As to the majors, the number of people with a clinical medicine major increased, while the number of public health workers decreased. As to the post flow, workers for communicable disease, chronic disease and laboratory testing, etc. increased, while workers for hazard supervision decreased a lot, which should be paid more attention to. As to the comprehensive quality score of the flowed workers, the average score of people flowed in (6.17) is bigger than that flowed out (4.44).(4) A big rise in the amount of academic education and post trainingThe average academic education times per institute increased from3.3in2005to27.1in2010; the average post training days per institute increased from86.6in2005to145.3in2010. (5) Human resource distribution is more imbalancedThe indicator reflecting the balance of human resource distribution increased from0.339in2005to0.362in2010, closer to the alarming line.(6) A big gap between the human resource status and the standardCompared with the human resource allocation standard for disease control and prevention institutes,69.5%of the chosen institutes are below the standard. The ratio of staff with a bachelor’s degree or above is22.0%,13.9percent lower than the standard (35.0%). The ratio of staff with a senior technical title is5.4%,4.6percent lower than the standard. The ratio of health specialists is78.8%,6.2percent lower than the standard (85.0%).3. Analysis on influencing factors of human resource qualityBy the correlation analysis between human resource quality and the performance, we find that the higher the comprehensive quality score is, the better the performance is. So a high quality team can promote the performance of County-Level CDCs.By further Analysis on influencing factors of human resource quality, we find several factors that influence the human resource quality, such as the input from the government, the social economic level and the chance of education and post training. While among different areas of the country, there are some differences:in the eastern area, the major influencing factor is the local economic development level; in the middle area, the most influencing factors are the government financial input and the annual income of the employees; in the western area, the chances of post training matters most.4. Suggestions1. As to solve the problem of declining numbers of employees, we should increase the government’s financial input, and build a scientific evaluation system and incentive mechanism.2. As to solve to problem of deficiency of human resource quotas, the quotas planning department should increase the quotas of CDCs in time as CDCs’functions and workload expanded.3. As to attract the high quality employees, we should establish some favored policies to attract newly graduated students to County-Level CDCs. And we should renovate the concept of HR management to build a mechanism that can not only attract the employees, but also sustain them.4. To increase the quality of emploees, we can start with increasing the financial input, the training time and the salaries of employees.Explorations1. Based on the Macro-Model of Health System, using the method of literature reviewing and expert consulting, we established the human resource evaluation indicator system of CDCs.2. With the method of policy evaluation and standard comparison, we systematically evaluated the changes of human resource of County-Level CDCs, finding the achievement we made and problems still existing.3. We built the influencing factor model of human resource quality of County-Level CDCs, finding the influencing factors and aiming to provide references to improve the human resource quality. |
PDF Full Text Request