本文選題：衛(wèi)生行政處罰 + 案卷��； 參考：《中南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：[目的]了解該地區(qū)2012年衛(wèi)生行政處罰中違法行業(yè)分布、案件來源等情況,為今后確立公共衛(wèi)生監(jiān)督工作重點(diǎn)提供參考依據(jù)；對案卷進(jìn)行評分,分析衛(wèi)生行政處罰過程中存在的主要問題,提出相應(yīng)的建議；分析衛(wèi)生行政處罰案卷質(zhì)量的影響因素。 [方法]對市級案卷進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)抽樣,對省級的三家單位的案卷進(jìn)行普查。使用自編的人口學(xué)資料問卷對主要承辦人進(jìn)行調(diào)查；使用自編的衛(wèi)生行政處罰案件相關(guān)情況問卷對145份案件的信息進(jìn)行逐一填寫；使用根據(jù)徐匯區(qū)衛(wèi)生局的《衛(wèi)生行政處罰案卷質(zhì)量評價指標(biāo)體系》制定的《衛(wèi)生行政處罰質(zhì)量評分表》和“具體評分方法”對案卷進(jìn)行評分。采用SPSS17.0統(tǒng)計(jì)分析軟件和EXCEL對數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析。 [結(jié)果]1.在145名案件主要承辦人中,男性103(71.03%)人、女性42(28.97%)人；年齡均數(shù)為40.03±8.09歲。 2.在145份行政處罰案卷中,違反食品、醫(yī)療、公共場所、飲用水、其他五個行業(yè)相關(guān)衛(wèi)生法律、法規(guī)和規(guī)范的分別有44(30.3%)、83(57.2%)、15(10.3%)、1(0.7%)、2(1.4%)份；涉及了30種案由,其中,無醫(yī)師資格行醫(yī),27份(18.62%),是最常見的案由；罰款145份,占100%,是首要的處罰種類；145份案卷均為自覺履行；0例發(fā)生行政復(fù)議或行政訴訟。 3.145份案卷總得分的范圍為68.92～98.85分、得分中位數(shù)90.85分、得分均數(shù)90.17±4.42分、得分指標(biāo)為90.17%；在28個三級指標(biāo)中,A22、B11、B12、B22、C11、C12、C22的得分情況很好,得分指數(shù)均為100%、A11、A32和D31的得分情況較差,得分指數(shù)在均60%以下、D32的得分指數(shù)最低,僅為17%。 4.單因素分析發(fā)現(xiàn),案件主要承辦人為男性、46歲以上、縣級衛(wèi)生執(zhí)法單位、處罰金額在4001～10000內(nèi)、部分履行的案件質(zhì)量可能更高。多元線性回歸分析顯示男性主要承辦人的案卷質(zhì)量較高、年齡較大的主要承辦人的案卷質(zhì)量較高。 [結(jié)論]1.無醫(yī)師資格行醫(yī),27份(18.62%),是最常見的案由。 2.衛(wèi)生行政處罰案卷總得分均數(shù)90.17±4.42,總得分指數(shù)90.17%,衛(wèi)生行政處罰案卷質(zhì)量較好。 3.28個三級指標(biāo)中,A22、B11、B12、B22、C11、C12、C22,的得分情況很好,得分指數(shù)均為100%；D32的得分指數(shù)17%,得分情況最差。 4.案件主要承辦人的性別、年齡是衛(wèi)生行政處罰案卷質(zhì)量的影響因素。圖9幅,表11個,參考文獻(xiàn)60篇。
[Abstract]:[objective] to find out the distribution of illegal industries and the sources of cases in the health administrative punishment in this area in 2012, to provide a reference basis for establishing the focus of public health supervision in the future, and to score the case files. This paper analyzes the main problems existing in the process of health administrative punishment, puts forward corresponding suggestions, and analyzes the influencing factors on the quality of the file of health administrative punishment. Methods: systematic sampling was carried out on the case files at the city level, and a general survey was carried out on the case files of the three units at the provincial level. The self-compiled demographic information questionnaire was used to investigate the main operators, and the self-compiled questionnaire was used to fill out the information of 145 cases. According to the quality evaluation index system of the health administrative punishment file of Xuhui District Health Bureau, the score table of health administrative punishment quality and the concrete scoring method were used to grade the case file. SPSS17.0 statistical analysis software and EXCEL were used to analyze the data. [result] 1. Of the 145 cases, 103x 71.03 were male and 4228.97 were female, with an average age of 40.03 鹵8.09 years. 2. Of the 145 cases of administrative penalties against food, medical treatment, public places, drinking water, and other relevant health laws, regulations and regulations in five other industries, 440.30. 30.3and 57.2were involved in the case of food, medical treatment, public places, drinking water, and the relevant health laws, regulations and norms of the other five industries. Twenty-seven cases of practicing medicine without medical qualifications were the most common cause, and 145 fines, accounting for 100, were the most important types of punishment, and 145 cases were all cases of administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation. The total score of 3.145 case files ranged from 68.92 to 98.85, the median score was 90.85, the average score was 90.17 鹵4.42, and the score index was 90.170.The scores of A22B11B11B12B12B22C11C11C12C12C12 and C12C22 were very good, and the scores of A11A32 and D31 were all worse than those of A11A32 and D31. The score index below 60% was the lowest with a score index of 17. 4. Single factor analysis showed that the main person responsible for the case was male over 46 years old, county health law enforcement unit, the amount of punishment was within 4001100.The quality of partially fulfilled cases may be higher. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the quality of the male main contractor was higher than that of the older one. [conclusion] 1. The most common cause is 27 cases of unqualified medical practitioners. 2. The average score of total score of health administrative punishment file was 90.17 鹵4.42, the total score index was 90.17 and the quality of health administrative punishment file was better. 3. The score of A22B11B12B12C11C11C12C12C22 is very good, the score index is 100 / D32's score index 17, the score is the worst. 4. The gender and age of the main person involved in the case are the influencing factors of the quality of the case file of health administrative punishment. There are 9 figures, 11 tables and 60 references.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.16;D922.11

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王和平,張建勤;制作衛(wèi)生執(zhí)法文書須正確引用法規(guī)條款[J];安徽預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;1998年02期

2 胡延廣;行政法律適用基本問題研究[J];河北公安警察職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期

3 周安寧;試論衛(wèi)生行政處罰的法律適用[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生管理;2001年06期

4 余劍虹;;衛(wèi)生行政處罰案件中當(dāng)事人確認(rèn)問題分析[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生管理;2006年05期

5 陳志強(qiáng);;從三起衛(wèi)生行政處罰案看違法主體認(rèn)定的重要性[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生管理;2008年03期

6 劉向陽;;寶山區(qū)2002～2007年職業(yè)衛(wèi)生行政處罰案件分析[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生管理;2009年03期

7 鄭群;;2005～2007年衢州市衛(wèi)生行政處罰情況分析[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生管理;2009年04期

8 王道才;;衛(wèi)生行政處罰中當(dāng)事人資格確認(rèn)問題分析[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生管理;2009年06期

9 嚴(yán)小霞;盧春燕;;167起衛(wèi)生行政處罰案件分析[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生管理;2010年05期

10 張鑫培;論衛(wèi)生行政處罰的違法主體性質(zhì)認(rèn)定[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生管理;2002年03期

，

本文編號：1872352