Establishment of the Standard System for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Emergency Response to Food Safety Emergencies: A Delphi Consensus Study
-
摘要: 目的：为建立食品安全突发事件应急响应效果评估标准体系，并得到食品安全突发事件应对评价指数。方法：采用德尔菲专家评价法，确定评价体系的各项具体指标内容。应用四分位距与肯德尔一致性系数作为判断专家意见一致性的统计量。通过统计各专家对各指标的重要性评分，确认各指标的权重，得出食品安全突发事件应对评价指数的计算公式。结果：Kendall’ W≥0.3及IQRs≤1标志着各位专家的意见达成了统一，统计学显著性设定为P<0.05。经过三轮专家讨论，课题组共确定了8个一级指标（包括：1.应急准备、2.监测预警、3.报告通报等）、21个二级指标（包括：11.应急预案建设、12.应急机制建设、13.应急演练实施等）以及49个三级指标（包括：111.相应层级政府及相关部门应急预案制修订情况、112.相应涉事单位针对所发生事件（故）是否制定应急预案、121.应急指挥机构设置情况等）。在对各指标的重要性评分结果进行统计分析后，得到了各指标的权重，由此构建出评价体系模型。结论：本研究确定了食品安全事件应急响应效果评价标准体系的各项具体内容与权重，得到了量化指数。该体系可作为评价食品安全突发事件应急响应工作的有效工具。Abstract: Objective: To get the standard system for evaluating the effectiveness of emergency response to food safety emergencies and the index for evaluating the response to food safety emergencies. Method: Each specific index content of the evaluation system was determined with the Delphi method. The interquartile distance and Kendall's consistency coefficient were applied as the statistical quantities for judging the consistency of experts’ opinions. The importance ratings of the indicators by experts were calculated to confirm the weights of each indicator, and the formula for calculating the food safety emergency response evaluation index was derived. Result: Consensus was obtained, if the IQR was less than 1 and Kendall’ W was larger than 0.3 (statistical significance was set at P<0.05). 8 primary indicators (1.Emergency preparedness, 2.Monitoring and early warning, 3.Report and announcement, et al.), 21 secondary indicators (11.Establishment of emergency plan, 12.Establishment of emergency response mechanism, 13.Implementation of emergency drills, et al.) and 49 tertiary indicators (111.The corresponding level of government and related departments to develop and revise emergency plans, 112.The relevant departments involved in the accident for the occurrence of whether to develop emergency plans, 121.Emergency command structure settings, et al.) were identified after three rounds of discussions. The evaluation system model, including the weights of each indicator, was established based on the statistics on the importance ratings. Conclusion: The specific contents and weights of the food safety emergency response evaluation criteria system were determined, and the quantitative index was obtained in this study. The emergency response work of food safety emergencies could be evaluated better.
-
Key words:
- food safety /
- emergency response /
- Delphi method /
- weight confirmation /
- evaluation system
-
表 1 参与本次德尔菲研究的各专家背景信息
Table 1. Details of Delphi participants
背景信息 人数
N=13职务职称 副处级及以上 7 正高级职称 4 副高级职称 2 单位级别 中央本级单位 8 地方单位 5 注：N为被邀请参与本次研究的总人数。专家的专业背景包括：食品、药品、公共卫生、应急管理、新闻传播等。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 各项指标的权重计算说明
Table 2. Instructions for calculating the weight of each indicator
一级指标 重要性评分 二级指标 重要性评分 三级指标 重要性评分 总得分 1. XXX Wα1 11. XXX Wβ11 111. XXX Wγ111 Wα1Wβ11Wγ111 ··· ··· ··· 11k. XXX Wγ11k Wα1Wβ11Wγ11k ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· 1j. XXX Wβ1j 1j1. XXX Wγ1j1 Wα1Wβ1jWγ1j1 ··· ··· ··· 1jk. XXX Wγ1jk Wα1Wβ1jWγ1jk . ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· i. XXX Wαi i1. XXX Wβi1 i11. XXX Wγi11 WαiWβi1Wγi11 ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ij. XXX Wβij ij1. XXX Wγij1 WαiWβijWγij1 ··· ... ··· ijk. XXX Wγijk WαiWβijWγijk 总和 F
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 第二、三轮研究中一级指标的描述性统计分析情况
Table 3. Descriptive statistical analysis of first-level indicators in the second and third rounds of research
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 第二、三轮研究中二级指标的描述性统计分析情况
Table 4. Descriptive statistical analysis of second-level indicators in the second and third rounds of research
二级指标 第二轮研究
W=0.268第三轮研究
W=0.382中位数 四分位距 中位数 四分位距 11.应急预案建设 4 1 5 1 12.应急机制建设 4 1 4 1 13.应急演练实施 5 1 5 1 21.监测情况 4 1.5 4 0.5 22.预警情况 4 1 4 0.5 31.报告与通报 5 1 5 1 41.对外信息公开 4 0.5 4 1 51.现场处置及人员救治 5 0 5 0 52.风险研判 5 0 5 0 53.风险控制 5 0.5 5 0 54.应急响应 5 0.5 5 0 55.应急指挥架构 5 1.5 5 1 61.调查组织 4 1 4 1 62.风险评估 5 1 5 0 63.检查检测 5 0 5 0 64.调查结果 5 0 5 0 71.生命健康危害 5 1 5 0 72.经济损失 4 0 4 0 73.社会影响 4 1 4 0.5 81.依法查处 4 1 4 1.5 82.总结反思 4 2 4 1
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 第二、三轮研究中三级指标的描述性统计分析情况与最终权重
Table 5. Descriptive statistical analysis and weight of third-level indicators in the second and third rounds of research
三级指标 第二轮研究 第三轮研究 权重（%） W=0.239 W=0.390 中位数 四分位距 中位数 四分位距 111.相应层级政府及相关部门应急预案制修订情况 4 1.5 4 0 0.75 112.相应涉事单位针对所发生事件（故）是否制定应急预案 4 1.5 4 1 0.28 121.应急指挥机构设置情况 5 1.5 5 1 0.28 122.应急指挥机构和各个可能参加应急处置的部门单位沟通联络效率Indices 4 1 4 1 0.22 123.应急装备配备情况 5 1 5 0.5 0.45 131.应急演练 5 1 5 1 0.34 132.相关人员是否接受应急相关培训 5 0.5 5 0 0.94 211.应急监测 4 0.5 4 1 0.99 212.监测信息来源、方式 4 1 4 1 0.99 213.预警期间事件监测 5 1.5 5 1 1.24 221.预警 4 1 4 0.5 1.63 222.预警级别判断是否准确 5 1.5 5 1 1.24 223.是否及时、准确、规范地发布预警信息 4 0.5 4 0.5 1.63 311.事发地向相应监管部门报告（或监管部门从其他渠道获取事件事故信息）的时间和信息 4 1 4 1 0.36 312.向其他可能涉及事件处置的外系统部门机构（如卫生、宣传、公安、农业等）
及政府通报的时间和信息4 1 5 1 0.45 313.向其他可能涉及事件处置本系统的单位（如上级市场监管局、下级市场监管局、
检验机构等）通报的时间和信息4 0.5 4 1 0.36 411.首次向社会发布信息情况：时间是否及时、内容是否适当、
发布形式和发布单位是否合适等5 0.5 5 0 0.75 412.事件发展过程中对外信息发布总体情况：频次、时间、内容、发布形式、发布单位等 4 0 4 0 0.60 511.是否及时对事故中健康和生命受损人群及时开展救治 5 0 5 0 6.92 512.对遭受危害的现场是否及时进行隔离和保护 5 0.5 5 0 6.92 521.应急处置指挥机构首次集中研判的时间和研判的准确性 5 0 5 0 6.92 531.对可能产生危害的产品和（或）单位采取行政强制措施（如查扣产品、暂停销售、暂停生产等）：是否及时、必要，控制范围是否恰当 5 1 5 0.5 4.20 541.事发单位及应急处置部门是否按照预案要求启动应急响应 5 1 5 0 6.92 542.事发单位及应急处置部门应急处置责任落实情况 5 1 5 0.5 4.20 543.各工作组按照工作职责分工协作情况 5 1.5 4 1 2.04 544.先期处置情况 5 1 5 1 2.55 545.现场处置方案制定及执行情况 5 0 5 0 6.92 546.相关职能部门协调联动情况 4 1 4 0 5.54 547.应急物资保障情况 5 0.5 5 0 6.92 548.应急处置行政成本 3 1 3 1 1.53 551.建立高效的应急处置架构，分组分工明确，协调机制完善有效 4 1.5 4 0 2.04 611.参与调查的人员组成合理；及时启动事件原因调查 4 2 4 0.5 0.99 621.及时组织有关专家针对危害因素开展风险评估情况 4 1.5 4 0.5 3.36 631.及时组织开展现场检查和（或）相关检验情况 5 1 5 0.5 4.20 641.是否及时查明事件真相，得出了明确结论 4 1 4 1 2.04 711.事件造成的危害健康、就医、住院、伤残、死亡等人数 4 0 4 0 2.69 712.应急处置过程对危害健康、就医、住院、伤残、死亡等人数的影响 4 0 4 0 2.69 721.事件导致的企业、行业经济损失 4 1 4 1 0.79 722.应急处置对企业、行业经济损失的影响 4 1 4 1 0.79 731.事件影响范围延伸（通过大数据分析手段研究相关指标客观数据） 4 0.5 4 0 1.30 732.次生舆情产生效应（通过大数据分析手段研究相关指标客观数据） 4 0.5 4 0.5 0.79 733.舆情回落速率（通过大数据分析手段研究相关指标客观数据） 4 1 4 0.5 0.79 734.公众对官方发布信息的认可信任度（通过大数据分析手段研究相关指标客观数据） 4 1 4 1 0.48 735.公众对事件处置结果的态度倾向（通过大数据分析手段研究相关指标客观数据） 4 1 4 0.5 0.79 811.对涉事单位及产品及时依法查处 5 1 5 0 0.36 812.对责任人员依法依纪追责 4 1 4 0 0.29 821.总结分析事件（故）应急处置过程是否存在问题及漏洞，如存在，应提出弥补措施 4 1 4 1 0.18 822.撰写应急处置报告 4 2 4 1 0.18 823.将应急处置过程中形成的文档、影像等各种资料及时、完整地收集整理并归档保存 4 2.5 4 2 − 824.举一反三，对可能出现的同类型风险点及时开展检查 4 1.5 4 1 0.18 注：823号三级指标因未达成一致性意见被删除。
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 不同权重的各项所包含的三级指标
Table 6. Indicators with of different weights
脚注 指标编号 脚注 指标编号 a 511，512，521，541，545，547 m 132 b 546 n 721，722，732，733，735 c 531，542，631 o 111，411 d 621 p 412 e 711，712 q 734 f 544 r 123，312 g 543，551，641 s 311，313，811 h 221，223 t 131 i 548 u 812 j 731 v 112，121 k 213，222 w 122 l 211，212，611 x 821，822，823
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 吴元元. 信息基础、声誉机制与执法优化——食品安全治理的新视野[J]. 中国社会科学,2012(6):115−133,207−208. [WU Y. Information infrastructure, reputation mechanism and the optimization of law enforcement: A new view of food safety management[J]. Social Sciences in China,2012(6):115−133,207−208. [2] JIANG L, HUANG T. Food poisoning associated with ingestion of wild wasp broods in the upstream region of the Lancang river valley, Yunnan province, China[J]. Toxicon, 2018, 145: 1−5. [3] World Health Organization (2015). WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases: Foodborne disease burden epidemiology reference group 2007-2015[R]. World Health Organization.https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/199350. [4] LEE C, JANG E J, YUM H, et al. Unintentional mass sodium nitrite poisoning with a fatality[J]. Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa), 2017, 55(7): 678−679. [5] JOEL B, LAUREN A, MARION R, et al. Genotyping Cyclospora cayetanensis from multiple outbreak clusters with an emphasis on a cluster linked to bagged salad mix—United States, 2020[J]. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2021. [6] 王春艳, 韩冰, 李晶, 等. 综述我国食品安全标准体系建设现状[J]. 中国食品学报,2021,21(10):359−364. [WANG C Y, HAN B, LI J, et al. A research review on the current situation of food safety standard system construction in China[J]. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology,2021,21(10):359−364. [7] 李娟, 何平, 梅蓉, 等. 武汉地区2017-2020年食品生产许可现场核查情况分析[J]. 中国调味品,2021,46(9):125−128,135. [LI J, HE P, MEI R, et al. Analysis of on-site verification of food production license in Wuhan from 2017 to 2020[J]. China Condiment,2021,46(9):125−128,135. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9973.2021.09.024 [8] JLA B, LIN Y, YAN Y, et al. Highly sensitive fluorescent quantification of acid phosphatase activity and its inhibitor pesticide Dufulin by a functional metal–organic framework nanosensor for environment assessment and food safety[J]. Food Chemistry,2022:370. [9] 沈冰, 杨敏, 马婷婷, 等. 信息化视阈下食品类课程思政教学资源开发途径初探−以食品质量安全管理课程为例[J]. 现代职业教育,2021(38):92−95. [SHEN B, YANG M, MA T T, et al. A preliminary study on the development of ideological and political teaching resources for food courses under the visual threshold of informatization: Taking food quality and safety management courses as an example[J]. Modern Vocational Education,2021(38):92−95. [10] 徐国冲, 李威瑢. 食品安全事件的影响因素及治理路径−基于REASON模型的QCA分析[J]. 管理学刊,2021(4):109−126. [XU G C, LI W R. Influencing factors and governance paths of food safety accidents: QCA analysis based on REASON model[J]. Journal of Management,2021(4):109−126. [11] 毛佳琦, 郑允允, 焦文静, 等. 基于多维度抽检数据的全国食品安全状况分析及对策探究[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2022, 48(5): 314−320.MAO J Q, ZHENG Y Y, JIAO W J, et al. Analysis of national food safety and countermeasure research based on multidimensional sampling data [J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2022, 48(5): 314−320. [12] 盛楠. 2016-2020年天津市武清区餐饮食品食源性主要致病菌污染分析[J]. 寄生虫病与感染性疾病,2021,19(3):113−115,119. [SHENG N. Analysis on contamination of food-borne pathogens in wuqing district of Tianjin from 2016 to 2020[J]. Parasitoses and Infectious Diseases,2021,19(3):113−115,119. [13] GONZALEZ-NAHM R S, STBYE T, HOYO C, et al. Association between food security, diet quality, and dietary intake during pregnancy in a predominantly African American group of women from North Carolina[J]. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2021. [14] HASSON F, KEENEY S, MCKENNA H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique[J]. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2000, 32(4): 1008. [15] 黄远程, 文艺, 李培武, 等. 基于德尔菲法制订慢性萎缩性胃炎慢病管理规范[J]. 广州中医药大学学报,2021,38(10):2268−2273. [HUANG Y C, WEN Y, LI P W, et al. Establishment of chronic disease management standardization of chronic atrophic gastritis with delphi method[J]. Journal of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,2021,38(10):2268−2273. [16] 徐晓宇, 方振威, 石秀锦, 等. 基于德尔菲法确定《心脏外科人血白蛋白合理使用快速建议指南》的临床问题及结局指标[J]. 药物流行病学杂志,2021,30(9):630−635. [XU X Y, FANG Z W, SHI X J, et al. Based on the delphi method to determine the clinical problems and outcome indicators of the rapid advice guideline for reasonable use of albumin in department of cardiac surgery[J]. Chinese Journal of Pharmacoepidemiology,2021,30(9):630−635. [17] 熊尚志, 张圣捷, 宫恩莹, 等. 应用德尔菲法构建中国城市地区慢病相关社区效能评估体系[J]. 中国慢性病预防与控制,2021,29(9):674−678. [XIONG S Z, ZHANG S J, GONG E Y, et al. Establishing the evaluation system of community efficacy for non-communicable diseases in Chinese urban area by delphi method[J]. Chinese Journal of Prevention and Control of Chronic Diseases,2021,29(9):674−678. [18] NEGRINI S. Why evidence-based medicine is a good approach in physical and rehabilitation medicine[J]. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 2014, 50(5): 585−91. [19] 刘鹏. 中国食品安全监管——基于体制变迁与绩效评估的实证研究[J]. 公共管理学报,2010,7(2):63−78, 125−126. [LIU P. Chinese food safety regulation: An empirical study on regime change and performance evaluation[J]. Journal of Public Management,2010,7(2):63−78, 125−126. [20] 李中东, 张在升. 食品安全规制效果及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国农村经济,2015(6):74−84. [LI Z D, ZHANG Z S. Analysis on the effect of food safety regulation and its influencing factors[J]. Chinese Rural Economy,2015(6):74−84. [21] 刘录民, 侯军歧, 董银果. 食品安全监管绩效评估方法探索[J]. 广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2009,31(4):5−9. [LIU L M, HOU J Q, DONG Y G. Exploration of food safety supervision performance evaluation methods[J]. Journal of Guangxi University (Philosophy and Social Science),2009,31(4):5−9. [22] 李长健, 段凌峰, 孙富博. 中国食品安全监管绩效分析——基于BSC分析路径[J]. 江西社会科学,2017,37(5):70−80. [LI C J, DUAN L F, SUN F B. Performance analysis of food safety supervision in China: Based on the BSC path[J]. Jiangxi Social Sciences,2017,37(5):70−80. [23] ZANG Y, JIANG T, LU Y, et al. Regional homogeneity approach to fMRI data analysis[J]. NeuroImage, 2004, 22(1): 394-400. [24] ZAMBALDI M, BEASLEY I, RUSHTON A. Return to play criteria after hamstring muscle injury in professional football: A Delphi consensus study[J]. Br J Sports Med,2017,51(16):1221−1226. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097131 [25] MARINOVICH M L, MACASKILL P, IRWIG L, et al. Meta-analysis of agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumour size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. Br J Cancer,2013,109(6):1528−1536. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.473 [26] ESPOSITO A, BUSCARINO V, RACITI D, et al. Characterization of liver nodules in patients with chronic liver disease by MRI: Performance of the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS v. 2018) scale and its comparison with the likert scale[J]. Radiol Med,2020,125(1):15−23. doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01092-y [27] SIEGLER A J, WIATREK S, MOUHANNA F, et al. Validation of the HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis stigma scale: Performance of Likert and semantic differential scale versions[J]. AIDS and Behavior,2020,24(9):2637−2649. doi: 10.1007/s10461-020-02820-6 [28] ZUST B, FLICEK B, MOSES K, et al. 10-year study of christian church support for domestic violence victims: 2005-2015[J]. J Interpers Violence,2021,36(3-4):NP1856−1882NP. doi: 10.1177/0886260518754473 [29] SUN H, CHEN D, WARNER D O, et al. Anesthesiology residents' experiences and perspectives of residency training[J]. Anesth Analg,2021,132(4):1120−1128. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005316 [30] VARBAN O A, THUMMA J R, FINKS J F, et al. Evaluating the effect of surgical skill on outcomes for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A video-based study[J]. Ann Surg,2021,273(4):766−771. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003385 [31] ZHOU F, WU L, GUO L, et al. Local connectivity of the resting brain connectome in patients with low back-related leg pain: A multiscale frequency-related Kendall's coefficient of concordance and coherence-regional homogeneity study[J]. Neuroimage Clin,2019,21:101661. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101661 [32] MCPHERSON S, REESE C, WENDLER M C. Methodology update: Delphi studies[J]. Nursing Research,2018,67(5):404−410. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000297 -
