不同职称人员对军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准的观点比较

鲁娟; 黄伟灿; 王悦

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2013.04.022

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

x 关闭永久关闭

应中央军委要求，2022年9月起，《药学实践杂志》将更名为《药学实践与服务》，双月刊，正文96页；2023年1月起，拟出版月刊，正文64页，数据库收录情况与原《药学实践杂志》相同。欢迎作者踊跃投稿！

不同职称人员对军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准的观点比较

鲁娟, 黄伟灿, 王悦

文章导航 > 药学实践与服务 > 2013 > 31(4): 314-317

鲁娟, 黄伟灿, 王悦. 不同职称人员对军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准的观点比较[J]. 药学实践与服务, 2013, 31(4): 314-317. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2013.04.022

引用本文:

LU Juan, HUANG Wei-can, WANG Yue. Comparison of different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice and Service, 2013, 31(4): 314-317. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2013.04.022

Citation:

LU Juan, HUANG Wei-can, WANG Yue. Comparison of different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice and Service, 2013, 31(4): 314-317. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2013.04.022

不同职称人员对军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准的观点比较

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2013.04.022

第二军医大学训练部, 上海 200433

基金项目: 2010年度全军医药卫生科研项目《军队卫生专业高级技术职务任职标准研究》.

Comparison of different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position

Training Department, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China

摘要: 目的比较中高级职称药剂人员对军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准的看法。方法通过德尔菲法组织两轮专家函询,比较不同职称者最终赋予各指标权重的差异。结果不同职称者对一级指标的看法基本一致,认为最重要的是药剂工作、专业知识(Kendall协和系数W=0.906,P=0.107),对二级指标专业知识、药剂工作、教学工作的意见基本一致(W=1,P=0.092;W=1,P=0.157;W=1,P=0.135)。对二级指标思想品德、科研工作、三级指标药剂工作数量、药剂工作质量、教学成果的看法不一致(W=0.75,P=0.223;W=0.75,P=0.223;W=0.75,P=0.223;W=0.1,P=0.896;W=0,P=1)。结论不同职称人员的看法有偏差,尤其是在药剂工作质量和教学成果的考量方面,中级职称者更看重短期指标如文章等;高级职称者更看重长期积累指标如教学奖励等。要进一步深入分析专家的不同意见,建立科学的军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准。
- 职称 /
- 药剂 /
- 军队高级技术职务 /
- 任职标准 /
- 观点
Abstract: Objective To compare different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists'credentials for military superior technical position. Methods Delphi method was taken to organize two rounds of specialist consultations, the final opinions of specialists with different professional ranks were compared on the index weights. Results In comparison of opinions about six first-level indicators (W=0.906, P=0.107), the specialists agreed that pharmaceutical work and professional knowledge were the most important. For the second-level indicators like professional knowledge, pharmaceutical work and teaching, the opinions were also consistent (W=1, P=0.092; W=1, P=0.157; W=1, P=0.135). For the second-level indicators like ideology and mortality, scientific research and the third-level indicators like quantity of pharmaceutical work, quality of pharmaceutical work and teaching achievements, the opinions were different(W=0.75, P=0.223; W=0.75, P=0.223; W=0.75, P=0.223;W=0.1, P=0.896; W=0, P=1). Conclusion The experts with different professional ranks had different opinions, especially on the aspects of quality of pharmaceutical work and teaching achievements. Those with medium professional titles focused more on shorter term indicators, while those with senior ones focused more on longer term indicators. These suggestions should be appropriately analyzed to build scientific pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position.
- professional rank /
- pharmaceutics /
- superior technical position /
- credentials /
- opinions

[1]	丁果.浅谈湖北省卫生专业高级职称评审的现状[J].公共卫生与预防医学,2008,19(5):100.
[2]	Frith L.Priority setting and evidence based purchasing[J].Health care analysis,1999,7:139.
[3]	余璐璐,彭彬,姚锐.卫生专业高级职称评审中实行量化标准的思考[J].咸宁学院学报,2009,10:164.
[4]	罗琳,梁旭.卫生专业技术职务评聘指标及机制研究[J].中国循证医学杂志,2010,10(5):631.

[1]	赵彦忠, 李铭浚, 何为, 孙悦, 王喆, 倪晓非, 郭锐. 军队药材仓储管理信息系统数据标准设计与实现 . 药学实践与服务, 2014, 32(3): 238-240. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2014.03.021
[2]	王冶信, 杨樟卫, 胡晋红. 药学服务和信息化背景下的新观点:构建医院药学信息系统 . 药学实践与服务, 2007, (3): 170-173.
[3]	王秀冬, 高申. 超临界流体沉积技术在药剂学中的应用 . 药学实践与服务, 2003, (4): 195-198.
[4]	顾玉麒. 美国的药剂师工作 . 药学实践与服务, 2002, (5): 315-316.
[5]	邓守庭. 浅谈药剂科的科学管理 . 药学实践与服务, 2000, (1): 53-55.
[6]	袁继民, 魏学彦, 于连生. 医院药剂科的新药开发 . 药学实践与服务, 1999, (1): 48-50.
[7]	张家象. 开设药剂大专班的体会 . 药学实践与服务, 1992, (3): 75-76.
[8]	张弓长, 史标, 张紫洞. 月经过多——当前药物治疗的观点 . 药学实践与服务, 1992, (3): 31-31.
[9]	许士凯, 朱天禄. 抗衰老药剂毒副反应简述 . 药学实践与服务, 1989, (3): 64-65.
[10]	. 医院药剂管理办法 . 药学实践与服务, 1989, (2): 2-4.
[11]	高平. 请端坐服用固体药剂 . 药学实践与服务, 1988, (4): 38-38.
[12]	RobertE.Notari. 生物药剂学的基本概念(四) . 药学实践与服务, 1984, (2): 75-77.
[13]	WalterSinger. 生物药剂学自学试题解答(下) . 药学实践与服务, 1984, (3): 71-74.
[14]	WalterSinger. 生物药剂学自学试题解答(上) . 药学实践与服务, 1984, (2): 69-72.
[15]	毕焕新. 医院药剂科现状调查及处方分析 . 药学实践与服务, 1984, (4): 38-42.
[16]	RobertE.Notari. 生物药剂学的基本概念(三) . 药学实践与服务, 1984, (1): 67-70.
[17]	张紫洞. 日本药剂师国家考试合格情况 . 药学实践与服务, 1984, (1): 44-44.
[18]	RobertE.Notari. 生物药剂学的基本概念(一) . 药学实践与服务, 1983, (2): 70-77.
[19]	RobertE.Notari. 生物药剂学的基本概念(二) . 药学实践与服务, 1983, (3): 68-73,57.
[20]	A.J.Nunn. 婴儿和儿童的用药剂量 . 药学实践与服务, 1983, (2): 47-49.

点击查看大图

计量

文章访问数: 1847
HTML全文浏览量: 140
PDF下载量: 258
被引次数: 0

不同职称人员对军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准的观点比较

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2013.04.022

第二军医大学训练部, 上海 200433

基金项目: 2010年度全军医药卫生科研项目《军队卫生专业高级技术职务任职标准研究》.

收稿日期: 2012-07-09
修回日期: 2012-11-14

关键词:

职称 /

药剂 /

军队高级技术职务 /

任职标准 /

观点

摘要: 目的比较中高级职称药剂人员对军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准的看法。方法通过德尔菲法组织两轮专家函询,比较不同职称者最终赋予各指标权重的差异。结果不同职称者对一级指标的看法基本一致,认为最重要的是药剂工作、专业知识(Kendall协和系数W=0.906,P=0.107),对二级指标专业知识、药剂工作、教学工作的意见基本一致(W=1,P=0.092;W=1,P=0.157;W=1,P=0.135)。对二级指标思想品德、科研工作、三级指标药剂工作数量、药剂工作质量、教学成果的看法不一致(W=0.75,P=0.223;W=0.75,P=0.223;W=0.75,P=0.223;W=0.1,P=0.896;W=0,P=1)。结论不同职称人员的看法有偏差,尤其是在药剂工作质量和教学成果的考量方面,中级职称者更看重短期指标如文章等;高级职称者更看重长期积累指标如教学奖励等。要进一步深入分析专家的不同意见,建立科学的军队药剂专业高级技术职务任职标准。

English Abstract

Comparison of different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position

Training Department, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China

Received Date: 2012-07-09
Rev Recd Date: 2012-11-14

Keywords:

Abstract: Objective To compare different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists'credentials for military superior technical position. Methods Delphi method was taken to organize two rounds of specialist consultations, the final opinions of specialists with different professional ranks were compared on the index weights. Results In comparison of opinions about six first-level indicators (W=0.906, P=0.107), the specialists agreed that pharmaceutical work and professional knowledge were the most important. For the second-level indicators like professional knowledge, pharmaceutical work and teaching, the opinions were also consistent (W=1, P=0.092; W=1, P=0.157; W=1, P=0.135). For the second-level indicators like ideology and mortality, scientific research and the third-level indicators like quantity of pharmaceutical work, quality of pharmaceutical work and teaching achievements, the opinions were different(W=0.75, P=0.223; W=0.75, P=0.223; W=0.75, P=0.223;W=0.1, P=0.896; W=0, P=1). Conclusion The experts with different professional ranks had different opinions, especially on the aspects of quality of pharmaceutical work and teaching achievements. Those with medium professional titles focused more on shorter term indicators, while those with senior ones focused more on longer term indicators. These suggestions should be appropriately analyzed to build scientific pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position.