Objective:To construct a biosafety evaluation index system for major emergency public health events in medical institutions.Methods:Based on previous laboratory biosafety evaluation work, relevant regulations and standards on biosafety in China were collected through literature research and expert consultations. Candidate indicators for constructing the biosafety evaluation system for major emergency public health events in medical institutions were selected, and a framework was established. Two rounds of expert questionnaires were conducted to determine the content of the index system based on experts′ evaluation, and each indicator′s relevance and importance were scored. Finally, two rounds of Delphi consultations were carried out, and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to calculate the weights of indicators.Results:The response rates for the total four rounds of questionnaire surveys were all 100%. The first two rounds focused on determining the framework, while the latter two focused on determining the weights for each indicator. The authority coefficients of the expert consultations for the two rounds of weights were 0.65 and 0.70, respectively, indicating the reliability of the research results. In the final round of survey, the Kendall′s coefficients of concordance at each level were all greater than 0.1. Through statistical testing, the P-values were all less than 0.05, indicating good coordination of expert opinions. Ultimately, we established an operational biosafety evaluation system for major emergency public health events in medical institutions, consisting of 4 primary indicators, 26 secondary indicators, and 119 tertiary indicators, with additional deduction items, bonus items, unacceptable items, and monitoring indicators.Conclusions:Based on scientific theory, a biosafety evaluation system for major emergency public health events in medical institutions was constructed, achieving the integration of routine and emergency measures. This system can be used for self-assessment of laboratory biosafety during emergency public health events, addressing the lack of unified standards in biosafety evaluation. Through regular self-assessment, it can enhance the level of biosafety management in medical institution laboratories, to realize the value of application and dissemination.

Objective:To construct a biosafety evaluation index system for major emergency public health events in medical institutions.Methods:Based on previous laboratory biosafety evaluation work, relevant regulations and standards on biosafety in China were collected through literature research and expert consultations. Candidate indicators for constructing the biosafety evaluation system for major emergency public health events in medical institutions were selected, and a framework was established. Two rounds of expert questionnaires were conducted to determine the content of the index system based on experts′ evaluation, and each indicator′s relevance and importance were scored. Finally, two rounds of Delphi consultations were carried out, and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to calculate the weights of indicators.Results:The response rates for the total four rounds of questionnaire surveys were all 100%. The first two rounds focused on determining the framework, while the latter two focused on determining the weights for each indicator. The authority coefficients of the expert consultations for the two rounds of weights were 0.65 and 0.70, respectively, indicating the reliability of the research results. In the final round of survey, the Kendall′s coefficients of concordance at each level were all greater than 0.1. Through statistical testing, the P-values were all less than 0.05, indicating good coordination of expert opinions. Ultimately, we established an operational biosafety evaluation system for major emergency public health events in medical institutions, consisting of 4 primary indicators, 26 secondary indicators, and 119 tertiary indicators, with additional deduction items, bonus items, unacceptable items, and monitoring indicators.Conclusions:Based on scientific theory, a biosafety evaluation system for major emergency public health events in medical institutions was constructed, achieving the integration of routine and emergency measures. This system can be used for self-assessment of laboratory biosafety during emergency public health events, addressing the lack of unified standards in biosafety evaluation. Through regular self-assessment, it can enhance the level of biosafety management in medical institution laboratories, to realize the value of application and dissemination.

Objective:This stndy aims to analyze the influence of ChatGPT on medical research and give suggestions on GhatGPT.Methods:This paper expounded the background of ChatGPT, analyze the connection between ChatGPT and medical research management, application and threats of ChatGPT , and gave suggestions to avoid GhatGPT′s damage.Results:Technology will promote the evolution of medical research management. It is recommended to strengthen the supervision of the ChatGPT and research integrity education.Conclusions:It is urgent to establish a scientific management mechanism to take usage the advantages of GhatGPT.

Objective:To construct a scientific research performance evaluation index system for specialized hospitals based on disciplinary development.Methods:Building a preliminary evaluation index framework of scientific research performance through literature review and expert consultation meetings, combined with the strategic goals of strengthening specialization and weakening generalization; Delphi method was adopted to conduct two rounds questionnaires survey to collect the importance scores for each index, which confirmed the content of the index system; finally, applied the analytic hierarchy process to calculate the weight coefficient of each index.Results:The responding rates of the two rounds questionnaire survey reached 95%, and the authoritative coefficients were 0.75 and 0.76, respectively. The research results were reliable. The coordination coefficients of all levels of the two surveys were greater than 0.1, according to the significance testing, the P values were less than 0.05, and the expert opinions were well coordinated. Finally, we developed a three-level scientific research performance evaluation system under the guidance of disciplinary development, which including 3 first-level indicators, 20 second-level indicators, as well as 56 third-level indicators. Conclusions:A scientific research performance evaluation system was constructed based on scientific theories. This system combined relevant indicators, such as the development of special disciplinary of specialized hospitals with scientific validity and operability. Besides, it could serve as a tool to evaluate the scientific research performance of specialized hospitals taking into account of the practical application value for guiding scientific research development and disciplinary improvement.

Science is the power of improving the academic discipline in hospitals.Evaluation of research has always be the key issue for research management.Using stratification method to establish the evaluation system was constructed directly by high level research output and based on the process of scientific,which can conduct quantitative assessment for individual level.The contents included three parts:process indicators,basic achievement indicators and high level achievements indicators.The implementation effect was satisfied during last year.The evaluation system stimulates high level research output.

Objective To analyze current situation of incentive mechanism and investigate the countermeasures.Provide the evidence for improving the incentive mechanism of scientific research at the hospital.Methods Questionnaire survey was conducted to investigate current situation and countermeasures of incentive mechanism of scientific research.Database was building using EpiData3.1,and was performed by descriptive analysis.Results 194 questionnaires were available.For the current incentive mechanism,86.5％ respondents thought the content is comprehensive,The over 50 years old,bachelor or below,and clinical examination group thought the content were less comprehensive.Respectively,81％,82.5％,76.2％ of respondents thought stimulation on achievements has positive effect to research,team work,and individual accounted for.The over 41 years old college or bellow,clinical treatment group felt less effect.For improving measures of incentive mechanism,the top three positions of contents were technological reward,high level project and SCI paper;and incentive methods were promotion,material rewards and training.Conclusions Incentive mechanism can promote scientific research to some extent.To further promote scientific research development,individual incentive measures need to be taken,the contents need to be expanded,variety incentive methods need to be used.