Objective This study aimed to systematically evaluate and mitigate risks associated with infectious disease prevention and control in general hospitals, with the ultimate goal of strengthening institutional capacity for infection management. Methods A hybrid risk analysis approach combining the Delphi technique and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was employed to identify, assess, and prioritize key vulnerabilities in hospital-based infectious disease control processes. Following risk prioritization, evidence-informed interventions were designed and implemented for the highest-ranking issues, and their impact was rigorously measured through pre- and post-intervention comparisons. Results Twenty-two distinct risk elements influencing infectious disease management efficacy were identified and stratified by severity and likelihood using FMEA scoring. The five most critical areas demanding urgent action were: (1) fragmented or under-resourced internal structures dedicated to infection control; (2) outdated or non-integrated health information systems lacking real-time surveillance capabilities; (3) inconsistent application of triage and initial screening protocols; (4) variable adherence to standard infection prevention practices across clinical units; and (5) inefficient interdepartmental coordination during the transfer of suspected or confirmed infectious cases. Post-intervention outcomes demonstrated marked improvements: the timeliness of mandatory infectious disease reporting rose from 84.66% to full compliance (100%); case report completeness reached 100%, up from 97.89%; and the median reporting time per case was halved—from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. Statistically significant enhancements were observed across all evaluated compliance indicators (p < 0.001). Conclusion The synergistic application of the Delphi method and FMEA facilitates proactive risk detection, dynamic monitoring, and responsive mitigation—transforming reactive practices into a robust, iterative, closed-loop governance framework that substantially elevates the quality and reliability of infectious disease prevention and control in general hospitals.
| Published in | Science Research (Volume 14, Issue 4) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11 |
| Page(s) | 128-134 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, Risk Assessment, PDCA Cycle Method
风险因素 | 风险发生的可能性（P） | 风险发生造成危害的严重性（S） | 风险发生准备程度（D） | 风险优先指数（RPN） | 风险等级 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
医院的传染病防控组织架构不健全，多部门协作机制不顺畅 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 100 | 极高风险 |
信息系统不能有效支持传染病的管理 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 80 | 极高风险 |
不能有效落实预检分诊制度，传染性患者未能及时引导至传染性疾病门诊就诊 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 64 | 高风险 |
临床科室对传染病防控措施（防护、消毒、隔离）执行率不到位 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 60 | 高风险 |
传染病患者在多个科室转科时告知不及时 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 18 | 高风险 |
传染病监测与疫情报告制度未有效执行 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 中高风险 |
传染病流行病学调查和处置不及时 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 中高风险 |
突发原因不明传染病会商机制不健全 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 中高风险 |
传染病预警反馈机制不健全 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 中高风险 |
当发生突发传染病疫情时，医院无能力及时启动应急预案 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 中高风险 |
医务人员对医院传染病应急预案的熟悉 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 中高风险 |
传染病监测与疫情报告不及时 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 中高风险 |
医院的传染病报告流程不合理，不方便医务人员操作 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 中高风险 |
医院未组织的传染病应急处置培训 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 中高风险 |
医院在传染病应急物资储备不足，难以应对大规模传染病 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 中低风险 |
医院无针对传染病早期预警的机制 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 中低风险 |
病原微生物实验室生物安全管理不规范 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 中低风险 |
医疗机构未单独设置传染病管理的医院二级委员会 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 低风险 |
医院制定的传染病相关制度、流程不合理 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 低风险 |
传染性疾病科的设置布局不合理，配套设施不完善 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 低风险 |
对传染病患者产生的医疗废物处置不规范 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 低风险 |
现有传染病诊疗模式不能够满足工作需要 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 极低风险 |
指标 | 优化前 | 优化后 |
|---|---|---|
临床医务人员法定传染病报告及时率（%） | 84.66%（6766/7992） | 100%（7967/7967） |
临床医务人员法定传染病报卡完整率（%） | 97.89%（7823/7992） | 100%（7967/7967） |
传染病报告卡平均所用时间(填报耗时min/例) | 10min | 5min |
防控措施 | 干预前 | 干预后 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
应执行次数 | 实际执行次数 | 执行率（%） | 应执行次数 | 实际执行次数 | 执行率（%） | χ2 | P | |
挂隔离标识 | 2130 | 1185 | 55.63 | 2683 | 2551 | 95.08 | 1063 | <0.001 |
单间、同种病原体同室隔离 | 2130 | 1086 | 50.99 | 2683 | 2577 | 96.05 | 1325 | <0.001 |
工作人员科学防护 | 3240 | 1913 | 59.04 | 3675 | 3562 | 96.93 | 1498 | <0.001 |
医疗器械用后处理规范性 | 2130 | 1107 | 51.97 | 3675 | 3566 | 97.03 | 1752 | <0.001 |
手卫生依从性 | 4329 | 2120 | 48.97 | 4798 | 4267 | 88.93 | 1729 | <0.001 |
环境表面荧光标记清除率 | 4685 | 2389 | 50.99 | 4989 | 4593 | 92.06 | 2029 | <0.001 |
| [1] | Abuhammad S, Alzoubi KH, Al-Azzam S, et al. Stigma toward healthcare providers from patients during COVID-19 era in Jordan [J]. Public Health Nurs, 2022, 39(5): 926-932. |
| [2] | van Barneveld K, Quinlan M, Kriesler P, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic: lessons on building more equal and sustainable societies [J]. Econ Labour Relat Rev, 2020, 31(2): 133-157. |
| [3] | Abuhammad S. Preparing for future pandemics: challenges for healthcare leadership [J] Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 2022, 14: 131- 136. |
| [4] | 王玲, 徐蓉, 李正莲, 等. 公立综合医院传染病防治能力现状及策略研究 [J].中国医院, 2021, 25(12): 8-11. |
| [5] | 姚峥, 田耕, 吴英锋, 等. 发挥综合医院发热门诊疫情防控“哨点”作用的思考 [J]. 中国医院, 2021, 25(6): 79-81. |
| [6] | Alhumaid S, Al Mutair A, Al Alawi Z, etal. Knowledge of infection prevention and control among healthcare workers and factors influencing compliance: a systematic review [J]. Antimicrob Resist Infect Contr, 2021, 10(1): 86. |
| [7] | Ellwanger J H, Veiga ABG, Kaminski VL, etal. Control and prevention of infectious diseases from a One Health perspective [J]. Genet Mol Biol, 2021, 44(1 suppl 1): e20200256. |
| [8] | 付梅花, 冯玮, 王晔, 等. 基于德尔菲法的新发重大传染病预警指标筛选 [J]. 中国卫生资源, 2023, 26(6): 663－668. |
| [9] | 赵娜, 武昆利, 付海艳. FMEA 法在传染病医院感染控制风险评估中的应用现状与展望 [J]. 中国卫生标准管理, 2022, 13(19):195-198. |
| [10] | 汤舒涵, 殷一, 潘明月, 等. 基于机器学习可解释性框架的流感传播风险模型应用研究 [J]. 中国卫生统计, 2026, 43(2): 162-166. |
| [11] | 向泽林, 王小辽, 许加亮, 等. 疾控监督员制度试点下医疗机构疾病预防风险评估研究: 基于Delphi法、FMEA与Borda序值法的综合应用 [J]. 现代预防医学, 2026, 53(4): 676-681. |
| [12] |
赵明辰, 罗卓韦, 王梦圆, 李梦瑶, 高志勇, 王小莉. 基于德尔菲法构建基孔肯雅热本地传播风险评估指标体系 [J]. 国际病毒学杂志, 2026, 33(1): 35-42.
https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn115394-20251016-20251016-00151 |
| [13] | 李娜, 吴怡晨, 林亚卿, 等. 发热伴血小板减少综合征风险预测模型的初步构建与验证 [J]. 中华传染病杂志, 2025, 43(11): 659-665. |
| [14] | 张新杨,王恒学,马涛,等.基于新型冠状病毒感染疫情数据的呼吸道传染病跨地区传播风险评估模型构建 [J]. 中国公共卫生, 2025, 41(9): 1118-1123. |
| [15] | 黄丽颖, 王超, 黄智鹏, 等. 基于风险管理的医院医疗废物处置现状及优化路径 [J]. 中华医院管理杂志, 2025, 41(9): 724-731. |
| [16] | 欧阳艳敏, 王长峰, 原宏敏, 等. 我国新发传染病风险预警指标体系构建研究 [J]. 医学与社会, 2025, 38(5): 15-21, 36. |
| [17] | 马正文, 马慧. 基于医护人员真实行为的呼吸道传染病风险评估: 以门诊耳鼻喉科为例 [J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2025, 24(4): 486-491. |
| [18] | 丁凡, 曲凯, 王琦, 等. 大型活动突发公共卫生风险应对能力评估指标体系的构建研究 [J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2025, 46(3):527-532. |
| [19] | 王茜茜. 传染病管理体系与防控联动机制在综合性医院传染病管理中应用效果 [J]. 中国当代医学, 2021, 28(2): 179-181. |
| [20] | 肖薇, 段梦兰. 天津: 智慧预警模式率先“实战” [N]. 健康报, 2024-11-7(6). |
| [21] | 刘超, 王爽, 倪杰,等. 基于技术接受模型的国家传染病智能监测预警前置软件系统使用体验的质性研究 [J]. 中国医药导报, 2025, 22(27): 24-29. |
| [22] | 姚宏武, 李佳熹, 索继江, 等. 医院感染信息化建设助力医院高质量发展 [J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2024, 34, 34(7): 1105-1110. |
| [23] | 蒋瑶, 罗逸维, 赖仁展. 医院感染实时监测系统在医院感染管理中的应用效果 [J]. 中国卫生标准管理, 2022, 13(20): 161-165. |
APA Style
Fan, S., Yang, Y., Wu, M., Ding, Y., Li, Y., et al. (2026). A Practical Study on Risk Assessment for Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Comprehensive Hospitals. Science Research, 14(4), 128-134. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11
ACS Style
Fan, S.; Yang, Y.; Wu, M.; Ding, Y.; Li, Y., et al. A Practical Study on Risk Assessment for Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Comprehensive Hospitals. Sci. Res. 2026, 14(4), 128-134. doi: 10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11,
author = {Shushan Fan and Yujie Yang and Min Wu and Yan Ding and Yanhui Li and Jing Ma and Chunyan Yang and Xiaona Gao},
title = {A Practical Study on Risk Assessment for Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Comprehensive Hospitals},
journal = {Science Research},
volume = {14},
number = {4},
pages = {128-134},
doi = {10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sr.20261404.11},
abstract = {Objective This study aimed to systematically evaluate and mitigate risks associated with infectious disease prevention and control in general hospitals, with the ultimate goal of strengthening institutional capacity for infection management. Methods A hybrid risk analysis approach combining the Delphi technique and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was employed to identify, assess, and prioritize key vulnerabilities in hospital-based infectious disease control processes. Following risk prioritization, evidence-informed interventions were designed and implemented for the highest-ranking issues, and their impact was rigorously measured through pre- and post-intervention comparisons. Results Twenty-two distinct risk elements influencing infectious disease management efficacy were identified and stratified by severity and likelihood using FMEA scoring. The five most critical areas demanding urgent action were: (1) fragmented or under-resourced internal structures dedicated to infection control; (2) outdated or non-integrated health information systems lacking real-time surveillance capabilities; (3) inconsistent application of triage and initial screening protocols; (4) variable adherence to standard infection prevention practices across clinical units; and (5) inefficient interdepartmental coordination during the transfer of suspected or confirmed infectious cases. Post-intervention outcomes demonstrated marked improvements: the timeliness of mandatory infectious disease reporting rose from 84.66% to full compliance (100%); case report completeness reached 100%, up from 97.89%; and the median reporting time per case was halved—from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. Statistically significant enhancements were observed across all evaluated compliance indicators (p < 0.001). Conclusion The synergistic application of the Delphi method and FMEA facilitates proactive risk detection, dynamic monitoring, and responsive mitigation—transforming reactive practices into a robust, iterative, closed-loop governance framework that substantially elevates the quality and reliability of infectious disease prevention and control in general hospitals.},
year = {2026}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - A Practical Study on Risk Assessment for Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Comprehensive Hospitals AU - Shushan Fan AU - Yujie Yang AU - Min Wu AU - Yan Ding AU - Yanhui Li AU - Jing Ma AU - Chunyan Yang AU - Xiaona Gao Y1 - 2026/08/06 PY - 2026 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11 DO - 10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11 T2 - Science Research JF - Science Research JO - Science Research SP - 128 EP - 134 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2329-0927 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20261404.11 AB - Objective This study aimed to systematically evaluate and mitigate risks associated with infectious disease prevention and control in general hospitals, with the ultimate goal of strengthening institutional capacity for infection management. Methods A hybrid risk analysis approach combining the Delphi technique and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was employed to identify, assess, and prioritize key vulnerabilities in hospital-based infectious disease control processes. Following risk prioritization, evidence-informed interventions were designed and implemented for the highest-ranking issues, and their impact was rigorously measured through pre- and post-intervention comparisons. Results Twenty-two distinct risk elements influencing infectious disease management efficacy were identified and stratified by severity and likelihood using FMEA scoring. The five most critical areas demanding urgent action were: (1) fragmented or under-resourced internal structures dedicated to infection control; (2) outdated or non-integrated health information systems lacking real-time surveillance capabilities; (3) inconsistent application of triage and initial screening protocols; (4) variable adherence to standard infection prevention practices across clinical units; and (5) inefficient interdepartmental coordination during the transfer of suspected or confirmed infectious cases. Post-intervention outcomes demonstrated marked improvements: the timeliness of mandatory infectious disease reporting rose from 84.66% to full compliance (100%); case report completeness reached 100%, up from 97.89%; and the median reporting time per case was halved—from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. Statistically significant enhancements were observed across all evaluated compliance indicators (p < 0.001). Conclusion The synergistic application of the Delphi method and FMEA facilitates proactive risk detection, dynamic monitoring, and responsive mitigation—transforming reactive practices into a robust, iterative, closed-loop governance framework that substantially elevates the quality and reliability of infectious disease prevention and control in general hospitals. VL - 14 IS - 4 ER -
Department of Public Health, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng, China
Department of Hospital Infection Management, Dongchangfu People′s Hospital, Liaocheng, China
Department of Public Health, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng, China
Medical Department, Public Health Section, Shandong Public Health Clinical Center, Jinan, China
Department of Public Health, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng, China
Department of Public Health, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng, China
Department of Public Health, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng, China
Department of Public Health, Liaocheng People′s Hospital, Liaocheng, China
Information