JP2011150493A - Business analysis system and business analysis program - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a business analysis system and a business analysis program, for totaling execution results of business by a plurality of groups, and analyzing and minutely comprehending a business past record result of each executor in an objective standpoint by comparison with a predetermined model group. <P>SOLUTION: About the common business executed by the plurality of executors, a chi-square value representing a degree of discrepancy of a numerical value between the model executor group and an individual executor is obtained about each individual executor by a chi-square arithmetic means 12 by use of data wherein a numerical value of each execution result item of each execution target item of the business executed in the past is totaled in each of the model executor group and the individual executors. Based on the obtained chi-square value, examination is performed by use of a preset significant level by a chi-square examination means 13, and the degree of the discrepancy with the model executor group is obtained in each individual executor. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2011,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to a business analysis system and a business analysis program that can analyze the results of each business performed in, for example, a long-term care insurance business.

  When a plurality of groups carry out a common task, it is necessary for the department that manages and supervises these groups to grasp the results of each group. As an example of a business in which a plurality of groups carry out such a common business, there is a nursing care insurance business implemented nationwide. In this long-term care insurance business, each municipality operates as a long-term care insurance business.

  This long-term care insurance business is implemented by the process shown in FIG. The flow will be explained in order from the left side of the figure. First, when the residents of a municipality want to use a nursing care service, the applicant applies to the municipality for certification of nursing care. When an application is made, an authorized investigator from an accredited research institute conducts an accredited survey on physical conditions. This certification survey is performed by a surveyor visiting an applicant for certification for long-term care and selecting an option set for each item for a plurality of preset certification survey items. In addition, the investigator makes a free statement as a special note about the items that cannot be expressed in the choices of each item. At the same time, the municipality asks the attending physician to create a written opinion.

  An authorized investigator must conduct an accredited survey based on an understanding and acquisition of the authorized investigator text issued by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. For accredited applicants who have the same mental and physical condition (disability, dementia condition, etc.), it is ideal that any investigator obtains the same survey results (leveling accreditation surveys) Desired. In addition, the local government (insurer) staff and representatives of accredited research organizations should improve the understanding of the above survey methods after quantitatively grasping the status and trends of the accredited survey results of each research organization and each researcher. It is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance for leveling the results of accreditation surveys. However, at present, it cannot be said that the situation / trend grasp and education / guidance as described above are carried out in a satisfactory manner, and the expected results are not sufficiently improved.

  The certification survey results are input to the computer, the standard time required for certification for long-term care is calculated by a predetermined primary judgment program using a tree diagram, and the degree of long-term care required based on the calculated standard time for certification for long-term care (not applicable, Support 1, 2 and each stage from need of nursing care 1 to need of nursing care 5) are output as primary determination results.

  After this, at the nursing care certification committee consisting of specialists in health, medical care and welfare, the contents of the primary judgment results, certification survey results, doctor's opinion and special instructions are comprehensively confirmed, and secondary judgment is made. It is determined whether or not care is required, and if care is required, how much care is required. Then, based on the judgment of the care certification examination committee, the insurer city / town / village performs the care certification (for example, see Patent Document 1).

  Accredited auditors are required to conduct accreditation based on the understanding and acquisition of the text of accreditation committee members issued by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. For accredited applicants with the same physical and mental condition (disability, dementia, etc.), which panel (a group of several judges attending each accreditation examination committee) It is ideally required that the same certification examination result be obtained (leveling of certification examination). In addition, the local government (insurer) staff, the chairperson of the accreditation review committee, and the chairman of the board will improve the level of understanding of the above examination methods after quantitatively grasping the status and trends of the accreditation review results of each panel and each auditor. It is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance for leveling the results of certification examinations. However, at present, it cannot be said that the situation / trend grasp and education / guidance as described above are carried out in a satisfactory manner, and the expected results are not sufficiently improved.

  When certification for long-term care is performed, a care plan that takes into account the mental and physical condition including the degree of long-term care required, nursing power, economic power, etc. is created by the Home Care Support Office and the Regional Comprehensive Support Center. Based on this, use of the service is started. That is, in the certification of long-term care, a person who is recognized as needing long-term care is recognized as one of the seven categories (degree of care required) of support 1 or 2 and long-term care 1 to 5, and services corresponding to this category. Can receive.

  Care managers at home care support establishments and regional comprehensive support centers need to create care plans based on understanding and learning of care plan preparation texts issued by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Which care manager prepares a care plan for those who want to use services that have the same status image (combination of the level of care required, psychosomatic state (disability and dementia status, etc.), nursing power, and economic power, etc.) Even so, the ideal care plan should be created (leveling care management). In addition, representatives of local government (insurers) staff, home care support establishments / comprehensive support centers, etc. are responsible for the preparation of care plans for each care management organization (home care support establishment / community support center) and each care manager. It is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to improve understanding of the above care plan creation method and level the care plan after quantitatively grasping the trends. However, at present, it cannot be said that the situation / trend grasp and education / guidance as described above are carried out in a satisfactory manner, and the expected results are not sufficiently improved.

  The contents of services provided include home care services (visiting care, home nursing, visiting care, etc.), home prevention services, facility services, community-based services, etc., and there are over 50 types. Each service provider provides services according to the care plan created by the care manager. Each service is subdivided into 6-digit codes called benefit detail codes, and the number of types of codes exceeds 20,000. For example, in the case of home care services, which are one of the home care services, they are classified into physical care and housework assistance, etc., and further subdivided according to their service provision time, etc. Remuneration obtained by monthly billing by the provider) is determined. The care manager refers to the status image of the service user (combination of the level of care required (the upper limit of the service usage amount is determined for each degree of care required), mental and physical condition, nursing power, and economic power (self-pay limit)). Thus, a care plan is created while considering that the total cost for each service detail unit does not exceed the service usage limit. Based on this, each service provider provides the designated service content faithfully.

  For service users who have the same status image (combination of the level of care required, mental and physical conditions (states of disability and dementia, etc.), nursing power, economic power, etc.), the same service content regardless of the care manager Is ideally required (equalization of service provision). In addition, the local government (insurer) staff quantitatively grasps the service provision contents of various service providers (understanding at the level of detailed classification, etc.) and then achieves a precise effect for leveling the service provision. It is necessary to provide practical education and guidance. However, at present, it cannot be said that the situation / trend grasp and education / guidance as described above are carried out in a satisfactory manner, and the expected results are not sufficiently improved.

  On the other hand, the staff (mainly in charge of planning) of the long-term care insurance department of the local government (insurer) is an authorized person (person who is certified as requiring long-term care) or a recipient (a person who uses the long-term care insurance service). It is necessary to try to grasp the actual situation. Specific contents of the work to grasp the actual situation include the age, sex, degree of care required, degree of disability independence, degree of independence of the dementia, and ability of care in the entire municipality or in multiple living areas within the municipality. (Household composition, etc.) ・ Economic power (insurance premium level, etc.), comparison between living areas, and changes over time. In addition, the results of the above-mentioned grasp of the actual situation are also used as basic materials for formulating the business plan described below.

  Local government staff have a prominence in the composition of the certified person / recipient's age, gender, degree of care required, degree of disability independence, degree of independence of dementia, nursing power, economic power, etc. It is necessary to accurately and effectively review the business plan, etc. after grasping timely and quantitatively about the specific location and the like. However, at present, it cannot be said that the situation / trend grasp and feedback to the business plan as described above are being carried out in a satisfactory manner, and the expected results are not sufficiently improved.

  In addition, based on the results of the above-mentioned grasp of the actual situation, as a business planning work, how to develop each service by considering the nursing care insurance service as a service infrastructure for the whole local government and each living area (service provision A specific plan for the quantity and its operating costs). In the long-term care insurance, all local governments formulate a business plan once every three years and calculate the insurance premiums collected from the insured among the residents in each period. Specifically, the fiscal year 2002 to 2002 is the first nursing care insurance business plan, the fiscal year 2003 to 2005 is the second term, the fiscal year 2006 to 2008 is the third term, and the fiscal year 2009 to 2011 is the fourth term.

  In formulating this business plan, it is necessary to organize a council consisting of experts in the fields of health care and welfare, socio-economics, etc., and formulate it with careful discussion based on the results of actual conditions. In addition, it is necessary to manage the progress of the development status (business results) of various service infrastructures every fiscal year or semi-annual, and the above council will also identify and eliminate the cause of the difference between the business plan and business results. It is necessary to deliberate.

  Local government officials should make timely and quantitative assessments of the status of maintenance for each type of service for the entire local government and living spheres, including the delay in progress and the presence or absence of excessive maintenance. It is necessary to review the business plan accurately and effectively. However, at present, it cannot be said that the situation / trends as described above, accurate reports to the council and feedback to the business plan are being implemented in a satisfactory manner, and the expected results have been sufficiently improved. There is no situation.

  Furthermore, in the recent flow of optimizing benefits, it is necessary to quantitatively grasp the cost effectiveness of nursing care insurance services. Specifically, a subject who has been “supported” at a certain point in time is tracked for 12 months or 24 months, and the state of change over time is defined as a “deterioration rate”. Also, the “cost” of the entire service used in the meantime is calculated from the nursing care benefit result data (receipt data), and the ratio is calculated as cost effectiveness (deterioration rate / cost). In calculating the cost-effectiveness, it may be performed not only for “support required” but also for every category requiring care, and for all categories and preventive benefits (support 1 or 2 required) and care benefits (care required 1 to 5) It may be done separately. If these cost-effectiveness can be compared and analyzed for each living area within the local government, each home care support establishment or regional comprehensive support center, and each care manager, more specific cost-effective improvement There is a possibility of being connected.

  The local government (insurer) staff quantitatively assesses the cost-effectiveness situation and trends of care insurance services for each living area, and for each care management organization (home care support establishment / community support center) and care manager. After understanding, it is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance for the extraction and standardization of cost-effective care plan creation methods. However, at present, it cannot be said that the situation / trend grasp and education / guidance as described above are carried out in a satisfactory manner, and the expected results are not sufficiently improved.

  In such a long-term care insurance business, as described above, the local government (insurer), who is the supervisor, supervises the above-mentioned accreditation survey work, accreditation examination work, care management work, service provision work, actual situation work, business planning work, It is necessary to know in detail the results of cost-benefit analysis work.

  In addition, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, which oversees the long-term care insurance business, as the general manager and supervisor, each business implementation result of each local government (accreditation survey management, accreditation review management, care management management, service provision management, actual situation grasping, business planning, cost effectiveness Analysis etc.) must be understood in detail.

JP 2001-5880 A

  However, when multiple implementers have performed common tasks so far, there is no system for analyzing the results of these multiple implementers from an objective standpoint and grasping their contents. There was a strong demand for analysis. In addition, based on the above analysis results, there was a strong demand for the creation of information-providing materials that can be used to provide education and guidance in a precise manner for each implementer.

  As a specific example of information provision materials, for accredited survey work, it was required to prepare educational and instructional materials based on the trend analysis of accredited survey results (selection result distribution by survey item, etc.) for survey institutions and investigators. Regarding accreditation work, it was required to prepare educational and instructional materials based on a trend analysis of accreditation examination results (severity change rate, etc.) for the panel and jury. Regarding care management services, education and guidance materials based on trend analysis of care plan creation results (average distribution of benefits per person by service type, etc.) for care management organizations (home care support establishments and regional comprehensive support centers) and care managers Creation was sought. Regarding service provision work, it was required to prepare educational and instructional materials based on trend analysis of the service provision results for each service provider (average distribution of per-capita benefits for each service type subcategory service content, etc.) . Based on the trend analysis of the composition, such as age, gender, degree of care required, degree of care required, degree of disability independence, degree of independence of dementia, ability of care, and economic power of the whole municipality and living area for the grasp of the actual situation There was a need to create feedback materials for business plans. Regarding business plan related work, it was required to prepare report materials to the council and feedback materials to the business plan based on analysis of the progress of each service type. Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis, trend analysis of the cost-effectiveness (deterioration rate and cost ratio, etc.) of long-term care insurance services for living areas, care management institutions (home care support establishments and regional comprehensive support centers), and care managers There was a need to create educational and instructional materials based on.

  In addition, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, which oversees the long-term care insurance business, analyzes the trend of each business implementation result (accreditation survey management, accreditation examination, care management management, service provision management, actual situation grasp, business plan, cost-effectiveness analysis, etc.). Based on the above, it was required to create educational and guidance materials for all local governments to realize various business optimization.

  The purpose of the present invention is to aggregate the results of business operations by a plurality of groups, and by comparing with a predetermined model group, it is possible to analyze the results of business results of each implementer from an objective standpoint and to grasp in detail. Another object of the present invention is to provide a business analysis system and a business analysis program capable of creating accurate information provision materials (education / guidance materials) for each implementer based on the analysis results.

  The business analysis system according to the present invention is configured to execute a plurality of execution result items each representing a numerical result of an execution result for each of a plurality of execution target items in a common operation performed by a plurality of implementers. It is a business analysis system that aggregates by person and analyzes the execution result by comparison with a predetermined model implementer group, and the numerical value of each execution result item for each execution target item of the work performed in the past is The business execution result data storage means for storing the business execution result data aggregated by the model executioner group and the individual executioners, and the model executioner group and the individual executioners held in the business execution result data storage means, Using the numerical value for each execution result item for each execution target item, the degree of numerical deviation between the model implementer group and the individual implementer is expressed. Chi-square calculation means for obtaining each chi-square value for each individual practitioner, and chi-square value obtained by the chi-square calculation means are tested using a preset significance level, and the model is determined for each individual practitioner. Chi-square test means for determining the degree of deviation from the practitioner group is provided.

  The business analysis system of the present invention uses the chi-square value data for each execution target item of each performer tested by the chi-square test means, and the chi-square value exceeds a preset significance level threshold. The structure provided with the deviation item specific | specification means which pinpoints an implementation object item may be sufficient.

  In the business analysis system of the present invention, a plurality of significance levels having different values are set in the chi-square test means, and a chi-square value to be tested is a threshold value range determined by the plurality of significance levels. It may be determined whether it falls within any of the ranges, and the degree of deviation may be determined according to the result.

  Further, the business analysis system of the present invention uses the chi-square value data for each execution target item of each of the performers tested by the chi-square test means, and the chi-square value is determined according to a plurality of significance levels set in advance. A configuration may be provided that includes deviation item specifying means for specifying each of the implementation target items that fall within any of a plurality of predetermined threshold ranges.

  Further, the business analysis system of the present invention provides the ratio of each execution result item in the execution target item of the individual implementer to the total value of all the execution result items, for all the execution result items corresponding to the model implementer group. The structure provided with the item contrast means to compare with the ratio with respect to the total value of an implementation item may be sufficient.

  Further, the business analysis system of the present invention was implemented before the predetermined period of the same individual implementer for the numerical value of each implementation result item in the implementation target item of the individual implementer identified by the deviation item identifying unit A configuration provided with a state change comparison means for comparing with the numerical value of the same execution result item may be used.

  Further, the business analysis system of the present invention is any of a local government, a certified research institution, and a certified researcher who operate and manage a certification survey by the plurality of implementers, and a common task is a certification survey, and a plurality of implementations The target item is a certified survey item, and a plurality of implementation result items each representing the implementation result with a numerical value are options representing the certified survey result.

  Further, the business analysis system of the present invention is a primary determination in which the plurality of implementers is a local government or a panel that operates and manages the certification examination, the common work is the certification examination, and the plurality of implementation target items are subject to examination. The result category is all categories, non-applicable, support 1, 2 required, care required 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; It is the number of minor changes, the number of no changes, and the number of severe changes from 2 to secondary judgment results.

  Furthermore, the business analysis system of the present invention is any one of a local government, a care management organization (home care support provider, regional comprehensive support center), and a care manager in which the plurality of implementers operate and manage care management. Is care management, a plurality of implementation target items is a state image consisting of a combination of psychosomatic state, nursing power, and economic power, and a plurality of implementation result items are service item items of a service type or a specific service type, The numerical value representing the result is the average benefit cost distribution per person.

  Furthermore, the business analysis system of the present invention is a local government or service provider in which the plurality of implementers operate and manage service provision, the common business is service provision, and the plurality of implementation target items are mental and physical states, care It is a state image consisting of a combination of power and economic power. A plurality of implementation result items are service item items of a specific service type, and a numerical value representing the implementation result is an average benefit cost distribution per person.

  Further, the business analysis system of the present invention is a local government or a living area within the local government where the plurality of implementers operate and manage the actual situation grasp, the common work is the actual situation grasp, and the plurality of implementation target items are age classes. And / or gender, or a combination of these, and the multiple implementation result items are any of the categories requiring long-term care, disability independence, dementia independence, long-term care, or economic power. The numerical value representing the number of subjects in each of the above categories.

  Further, the business analysis system of the present invention is a local government or a living area within a local government where the plurality of implementers implement a business plan, a common business is a business plan, and a plurality of implementation target items are home care services , Preventive services, or facility services, and multiple implementation result items are service types for each service category, and the numerical value representing the implementation result is the number of times for each service type or planned benefit cost It is the business plan progress rate as a percentage of

  Furthermore, the business analysis system of the present invention is any of a local government, a care management organization (home care support provider, regional comprehensive support center), and a care manager in which the plurality of implementers perform cost-effectiveness analysis. Is a cost-effectiveness analysis, multiple items to be implemented are either age group and gender, or a combination of these, and multiple results items are cost-effectiveness analysis items by category of nursing care, The numerical value indicating the implementation result is the cost-effectiveness as a ratio of the deterioration rate or the rate of deterioration by cumulative long-term care costs at the start of evaluation.

  The business analysis program of the present invention is configured to execute a plurality of execution result items each representing a numerical result of an execution result for each of a plurality of execution target items in a common operation performed by a plurality of implementers. This is a business analysis program that enables a computer to perform the function of analyzing the execution results by comparing with a model implementer group determined in advance, and numerical values for each execution result item of the business performed in the past However, the execution result item for each execution target item of the model implementer group and the individual implementer using data stored in the work execution result data storage means is aggregated by the model implementer group and the individual implementer. A chi-square value representing the degree of deviation of the numerical value between the model implementer group and the individual implementer by giving another numeric value to the chi-square calculating means. Each individual practitioner is obtained, and the chi-square value obtained by the work execution result data storage means is given to the chi-square test means, and the test is performed for each individual practitioner by a test based on a preset significance level. It is characterized in that the degree of deviation from the model implementer group is obtained.

  The business analysis program of the present invention uses the chi-square value data for each execution target item of each performer tested by the chi-square test means, and the chi-square value exceeds a preset significance level threshold value. The implementation target item may be specified by the deviation item specifying means.

  In the business analysis program of the present invention, the chi-square test means has a plurality of significance levels having different values, and the chi-square value to be tested is any of a plurality of threshold ranges determined by the plurality of significance levels. It may be configured to have a function of examining whether or not to enter and obtaining the degree of deviation according to the result.

  Further, the business analysis program of the present invention uses the chi-square value data for each execution target item of each performer tested by the chi-square test means, and the chi-square value is determined according to a plurality of significance levels set in advance. The implementation target item that falls within any of a plurality of fixed threshold ranges may be specified by the shift item specifying unit.

  In addition, the business analysis program of the present invention is configured so that the ratio of each execution result item in the execution target item of the individual implementer to the total value of all the execution result items corresponds to the implementation of the model implementer group by the item comparison means. You may make it contrast with the ratio with respect to the total value of all the implementation result items of a result item.

  Furthermore, the business analysis program of the present invention uses the state change comparison unit to calculate the numerical value of each execution result item in the execution target item of the individual implementer specified by the deviation item specifying unit, for a predetermined period before the same individual implementer. It may be compared with the numerical value of the same implementation result item implemented in (1). Furthermore, a history change comparison may be performed for each of a plurality of analysis target periods.

  According to the present invention, by comparing the execution results of work performed by a plurality of implementers and comparing them with the implementation results of a predetermined model implementer group, the management supervisory department of these implementers It is possible to analyze the contents of the work in detail and grasp it in detail, and to provide guidance and education with high quality and efficiency for the implementer.

It is a block diagram explaining one Embodiment of the work analysis system by this invention. It is a functional block diagram explaining the chi-square calculation means in one embodiment of the present invention. It is a functional block diagram explaining the chi-square test means in one embodiment of the present invention. It is a flowchart explaining the operation | movement for excluding the research organization of the peculiar age structure in one embodiment of this invention. It is a figure showing the age composition of investigation object of each investigation organization in one embodiment of the present invention in a tabular form. It is a figure which shows the number and ratio according to the choice in the investigation item “movement” of the authorized investigation in one embodiment of the present invention, (a) in a table format and (b) in a band graph format. It is a figure which shows the deviation item list according to investigation organization output by the deviation item specific | specification means in one embodiment of this invention. It is a figure which shows the item contrast graph with the model average output by the item contrast means in one embodiment of this invention. It is a figure which shows the effect analysis comparison graph output by the state change comparison means in one embodiment of this invention. It is a figure showing the number and ratio according to the examination result in the examination item “all categories” of the certification examination in one embodiment of the present invention, (a) in a table format and (b) in a band graph format. It is a figure which shows the deviation item list according to the meeting body output by the deviation item specific | specification means in one embodiment of this invention. It is a figure explaining the flow of work in a general care insurance business. It is a figure showing the comparison according to duties (accreditation investigation, accreditation examination) when a management supervisor is a local government. It is a figure showing the comparison according to duties (care management, service provision) when a management supervisor is a local government. It is a figure showing the comparison according to duties (actual situation grasp, business plan) in case a management supervisor is a local government. It is a figure showing the comparison according to duties (cost-effectiveness analysis) in case a management supervisor is a local government. It is a figure showing the comparison according to duties (accreditation investigation, accreditation examination) when a management supervisor is the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. It is a figure showing the comparison according to duties (care management, service provision) when a management supervisor is the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. It is a figure showing the comparison according to duties (actual condition grasping, business plan) when the manager is MHLW. It is a figure showing the comparison according to duties (cost-effectiveness analysis) in case a management supervisor is Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.

  FIG. 1 shows the configuration of a business analysis system in this embodiment. This business analysis system is, for example, an insurer for a long-term care insurance business, an accredited survey conducted by an accredited research institution or accredited investigator, an accredited review conducted by a panel, a home care support business , Care management carried out by the Regional Comprehensive Support Center and Care Manager, service provision carried out by service providers, grasping the actual situation conducted by local governments (insurers) for each municipality and every living area, business plans and cost-effectiveness analysis Analyzing the results of such operations. In other words, this is a business analysis system in which a plurality of execution result items each representing the execution results are numerically counted for each implementer, and the implementation results are analyzed by comparison with a predetermined model implementer group.

  The outline of this business analysis system will be described below. Here, taking the nursing care insurance business as an example as described above, first, a case where the common work performed by a plurality of practitioners is an accredited survey performed by a plurality of accredited survey institutions will be described. In this case, a plurality of implementation target items in this work are accreditation survey items, and a plurality of implementation result items each representing the implementation result by a numerical value is the number of cases for each option in the accreditation survey result.

  Each unit described below is realized as a function by a peripheral device such as a computer and a storage device, and a predetermined process is executed by a preset program.

  In FIG. 1, the work execution result data storage means 11 indicates that the number of cases for each option as the investigation result for each of the authorized investigation items in the authorization investigation work carried out in the past is the model investigation organization group and a plurality of other individual investigations. Retain data aggregated by institution. Note that the model research institution group is a research institution that, for example, has thoroughly instructed the investigator and verified in advance that an appropriate accreditation survey has been conducted. It is a research organization.

  The chi-square calculation means 12 uses the data held in the work execution result data storage means 11, that is, the numerical value for each option for each survey item between the model research institution group and the individual research institution, Obtain a chi-square value that indicates the degree of deviation of the survey results from the individual survey organization for each survey item for each survey organization.

  The chi-square test means 13 tests the chi-square value obtained by the chi-square calculation means 12 using a preset significance level, and determines the degree of deviation of the survey results from the model research institution group for each individual research institution. Ask for each. In addition, if a plurality of significance levels are set in the chi-square test means 13, it is tested whether the chi-square value to be tested falls within one of a plurality of ranges determined by these plurality of significance levels, The degree of deviation can be determined according to the result. The test result by the chi-square test means 13 is held in the chi-square test result storage means 14.

  The deviation item specifying means 15 uses the chi-square value data for each survey item of each research institution verified by the chi-square test means 13 and uses the chi-square value to exceed the threshold value of the preset significance level. Identify. In addition, if the data tested by the chi-square test means 13 is data tested by a plurality of significance levels, the deviation item specifying means 15 is arranged for each degree of deviation determined by the plurality of significance levels. It has a function to identify each certified survey item within the scope.

  The item comparison means 16 calculates the ratio of the accredited survey item of each individual research institution to the total value of all the options, and the ratio of the corresponding accredited survey item of the model research institution group to the total value of all the options. It has a function to compare.

  The state change comparison means 17 is a function for comparing the numerical values for each option of the authorized survey item specified by the item contrast means 16 with the numerical values for each option of the same authorized investigation item that was conducted before a predetermined period of the same individual research organization. Have

  From the chi-square test result storage means 14, the deviation item specifying means 15, the item comparison means 16, and the state change comparison means 17, an execution result analysis table 18, a deviation item list table 19, a model comparison graph 20, and an effect analysis comparison Each graph 21 can be output as data.

  Details will be described below. Each local government, which is an insurer, accumulates data on various operations carried out in the past regarding the long-term care insurance business, and in analyzing the business, the data to be analyzed is collected from the accumulated data. Next, filtering is performed on the collected data to exclude data that is not suitable for analysis, for example, data of a practitioner with a small number of data, data that has a unique age structure of a care insurance subject, and the like.

  This filtering process will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG.

  First, the certification data collected from various business data related to the long-term care insurance business held by the local government (referred to as XX city) is grouped by surveying organization (step 401). Here, if the number of data samples held by the research institution is small or the survey subject is extremely old, there is a possibility that a prominent value may occur depending on these. For example, if the survey target includes a large number of elderly people, the certification time required for long-term care inevitably increases. Therefore, such data is excluded.

  For this purpose, the threshold value for the number of samples is set to x or more in advance, and it is determined whether or not the number of samples of authorized data is x or more for each research organization (step 402). As a result, survey institutions less than x are excluded (step 402: No). On the other hand, regarding the accreditation data of the research institution determined to be x or more (step 402: Yes), it is checked whether it is an exclusion target for the age structure.

  First, a population ratio of 65 years old and over and a standard measure are calculated (step 403), and a list thereof is created as shown in FIG. 5 (step 404). In FIG. 5, in the top row, the average age of the specific age (65 years old) or higher in XX city, the population (number of cases) for each age group of specific age (65 years old) or higher, and the ratio are shown. Has been. In the second and following lines, data of each research organization 01 to 20 in XX city is shown. For each research institution 01-20, from the left column in the figure, the average age of a specific age (65 years old) or more, the average ratio of the average age of XX city and the average age of the relevant research institution, the standard measure of the relevant research institution, The population (number of cases) by age group over a specific age (65 years old) and the ratio are shown. In addition, the value of the standard deviation with respect to each average age is shown outside the bottom line.

  The standard measure of each research organization 01-20 is obtained as follows. That is, an average value μ of all survey institutions (populations) is calculated using the average age data (xi, where i = 1 to 20) of survey institutions 01 to 20, and a standard deviation σ is calculated. The standard measure ti is calculated by the following equation (1) from the average age μ and standard deviation σ of all survey institutions (populations) calculated as described above and the average age xi of each survey agency.

ti = (xi−μ) / σ (1)
Next, it is determined whether the standard measure ti in each of the research institutions 01 to 20 calculated in this way is outside a preset threshold range (step 405). That is, the standard measure ti of the average age for each of the survey institutions 01 to 20 is compared with a threshold value (in this case, ± 1.96σ), and survey institutions whose standard measure ti is outside the preset range are surveyed with a unique age structure. Detect as an institution.

  In the example of FIG. 5, with respect to the threshold value ± 1.96σ, the research organization 6 has a standard measure of 2.08 and deviates upward, and the research organization 18 has a standard measure of −2.51 and deviates downward. These are excluded.

  In the above example, the age is taken as an example, but as another example, the sex may be targeted, or a combination of age and sex may be targeted.

  In this way, with respect to the authorization data excluding the specific data, the authorization investigation result is analyzed by the business analysis system shown in FIG. Therefore, the data held in the business execution data storage unit 11 in FIG. 1 is the authorization data from which the unique data is excluded.

  Here, as described above, in the accreditation survey, the investigator visits the nursing care accreditation applicant, and a plurality of preset accreditation survey items (55 items from the first group to the fifth group in the accreditation 2009). Investigate and select options set for each item. Therefore, the survey results of each research institution (number of cases for each option) are analyzed according to the degree of deviation from the model research institution group for each of these accredited survey items. Here, a model research institution group shall select and register a research institution that is acquainted with the accredited researcher's manual and can conduct a proper accreditation survey.

  FIG. 6 shows an implementation result distribution table (named “Survey Result Distribution Table by Survey Item / Surveying Organization” as an example name) in the accredited survey. "And the chi-square value thereof. That is, FIG. 6 shows the calculation result by the chi-square calculation means 12 and the test result by the chi-square test means 13 shown in FIG. 1, and these calculation processes and test processes will be described in detail below.

  As described above, the data held in the work execution data storage unit 11 in FIG. 1 is the number of cases according to the choices, which are the search results, for each authorized investigation item in the past authorized investigation work. And other aggregated data from multiple individual research institutions. The first column from the left of FIG. 6A shows the research institution that is the object of analysis.

  In the first column, the model average represents an average value of a plurality of model research institution groups. As mentioned above, the model research institution group is a research institution that has been verified in advance that an appropriate accreditation survey has been conducted. Further, as the individual research organizations other than the model research organization group, the research organizations 01 to 10 are illustrated here. Assume that these research institutions 01 to 10 exclude specific data (singular research institutions) by the above-described method. Of these, the research organization 01 is a so-called directly managed organization operated by the local government, and the survey organizations 02 to 10 are private organizations operated by private business entities.

  The local government average is the average of the survey institutions 01 to 10 under the jurisdiction of the local government, and the total value of the survey institutions 01 to 10 is indicated. The private average is the average of the private research organizations 02 to 10 excluding the directly managed research organization 01, and the total value of the private research organizations 02 to 10 is shown.

  The second column of FIG. 6 shows the total value of the number of investigations at each of the above-mentioned institutions. In the third column to the tenth column, the number of survey results of the options 1 to 4 which are implementation result items and the ratio thereof are respectively shown. In FIG. 6, since the certification survey item that is the implementation target item is “movement”, the option that is the implementation result item is that option 1 is “not assisted” and option 2 is “watching etc.” Option 3 is “partial assistance” and option 4 is “all assistance”. For each of these options, the number of accreditation survey results conducted by the investigators of each research institution for the applicants requiring certification for long-term care and the ratio thereof are shown.

  The chi-square calculation means 12 reads these numerical values from the business execution data storage means 11 of FIG. 1, and calculates the chi-square values shown in the eleventh column of FIG. 6 by the calculation function shown in FIG. Calculated according to private average and each research organization 01-10. In FIG. 2, the chi-square calculation means 12 includes model survey organization group (model implementer group) actual measurement data (here, each numerical value of the model average) among the data read from the work execution data storage means 11; Actual measurement data (in this case, local government averages, private averages, and numerical values of the survey institutions 01 to 10) of the individual survey institutions (individual implementers) to be analyzed are used.

  Hereinafter, the basic function when calculating the chi-square value will be described. In calculating the chi-square value, an id is assigned to each option that is an execution result item. That is, here, id is option 1, option 2, option 3, and option 4. Then, the degree of deviation is calculated as a chi-square value X ^ 2 from the occurrence frequency (measured frequency) for each id and the theoretical frequency.

  At this time, the chi-square calculating unit 12 firstly uses the measured frequency extraction unit 121 for each id from the measured data of the individual practitioner read from the authorized data storage unit 11, and the measured frequency A [id for each id for each analysis target. ] Is extracted. Next, the theoretical frequency B by id by the id is calculated by the id theoretical frequency calculation unit 122 using the actually measured frequency by id of the model research institution group.

  Here, the theoretical frequency B [id] is the sum of the actual measured frequencies (frequency distribution) for each ID of the model research institution group, and the total of the actual measured frequencies A [id] for each ID of the target research institution to be compared. This is the expected frequency distribution of the analysis target calculated by matching the value. This theoretical frequency B [id] is obtained by the following equation (2).

Theoretical frequency by analysis B [id] =
Total value of measured frequency A [id] by id of analysis target x
(Measurement frequency by ID of model research organization group / Measurement by ID of model research organization group
Total value of frequency) (2)
The id-specific chi-square value calculation unit 123 calculates the id-specific chi-square value X ^ 2 [id] by using the measured frequency A [id] for each id and the theoretical frequency B [id] for each id. Calculate in (3).

X ^ 2 [id] = (A [id] -B [id]) ^ 2 / B [id] (3)
The chi-square value calculation unit 124 obtains a chi-square value X ^ 2 by summing the chi-square values X ^ 2 [id] for each id obtained by the above equation (3).

  Next, with such a basic function of the chi-square calculation means 12, the model average shown in FIG. 6 and the analysis target (local average, private average, which is the target for calculating the chi-square value, research institutions 01 to 10) A case where a chi-square value representing the degree of deviation is calculated will be described.

  The chi-square calculation means 12 uses the actually measured frequency extraction unit 121 for each id shown in FIG. 2 to determine the actually measured frequency A [id] for each id in the analysis target (for example, the research institution 02) (option 1: 664, option). 2: 177, option 3:83, option 4: 147) are extracted. In addition, the measured frequency by ID of the model research institution group (model average) (option 1: 258, option 2:76, option 3:28, option 4:55), and the actual frequency by ID of the model research institution group (model average) The total value of 417, and the total value of the measured frequency A [id] by id of the analysis target (surveying institution 02): 1071, the id of the theoretical frequency calculation unit 122 by id uses the id of the analysis target (surveying institution 02). Another theoretical frequency B [id] is calculated by the above-described equation (2).

  Then, the chi-square value for each id is used to calculate the chi-square value for each id using the measured frequency A [id] for each id and the theoretical frequency B [id] for each id in the analysis target (surveying institution 02). X ^ 2 [id] is calculated by the aforementioned equation (3). Further, the chi-square value calculation unit 124 adds the chi-square value X ^ 2 [id] for each id to obtain the chi-square value of the analysis target (surveying organization 02) (here, X ^ 2: 3.641134). Calculated).

  The above calculation is also performed for each of the other research institutions 01, 03, to 10, local government averages, and private sector averages to obtain values shown in the column of “chi-square values” in FIG.

  Here, it is assumed that the directly managed research organization 01 has the same value as the model average (no deviation) as shown in FIG. 6A. In this way, when there is no deviation from the model average, the chi-square value is “0”. The chi-square value of the private average including the private research organization 02 described above is a relatively large value of “28.37536”. Since the local government average includes directly managed survey organizations 01 without any deviation, its chi-square value is “26.25055”, which is slightly smaller than the private average.

  The chi-square value of each analysis object obtained in this manner is tested by the chi-square test means 13 using a preset significance level, and is determined by the model research institution group for each analysis object that is an individual research institution. The degree of deviation from the model average is obtained.

  The chi-square test means 13 tests the set hypothesis. As hypotheses, the null hypothesis (there is no difference between the model research institution group and the individual research institution) and the alternative hypothesis (there is a difference between the model research institution group and the individual research institution), the model Test whether there is a discrepancy in the distribution of the results of the surveys between the survey groups and the individual survey organizations. That is, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates how much the obtained data is deviated from the theoretical value as the chi-square value X ^ 2, so if the probability that the numerical value is generated is extremely small, the null hypothesis is obtained. Reject and adopt the alternative hypothesis (the hypothesis you want to prove, the real intention).

  As shown in FIG. 3, the chi-square test means 13 is set with a degree of freedom n and a significance level α. The degree of freedom n is a value obtained by subtracting −1 from the number of possible categories (here, the number of ids). That is, if one is decided, it is the number that can be moved freely. The significance level α is a chi-square value X ^ 2 in a chi-square distribution determined by the degree of freedom n (expressed by a curve in FIG. 3; if the degree of freedom n changes, the chi-square distribution (shape of the curve) also changes). The probability of the occurrence of. That is, this is a criterion for determining whether the probability of occurrence of the chi-square value X ^ 2 is significant (the null hypothesis is adopted) or rejected. For example, if the significance level is 1% (α = 0.01), the null hypothesis is rejected if the probability that the chi-square value X ^ 2 represented by the horizontal axis will occur is less than 1%. That is, the chi-square test means 13 determines whether there is a difference between the model average and the data to be analyzed from the chi-square value X ^ 2 obtained by the chi-square calculation means 12 and the preset significance level α. Judging.

  As shown in FIG. 3, the chi-square test means 13 is set with a degree of freedom n and a significance level α. In the example of FIG. 6, since there are four ids (options), the degree of freedom n is 3. The significance level α is set to 25% (α = 0.25), 10% (α = 0.1), 5% (α = 0.05), 1% (α = 0.01), Test whether the null hypothesis is rejected or accepted against the significance level. That is, when the chi-square value of the analysis object exceeds the threshold determined by these significance levels and degrees of freedom, the null hypothesis “There is no difference between the model research institution group and the individual research institution” is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis “model research There is a discrepancy between the institution group and the individual research institution. In addition, when the alternative hypothesis “there is a gap between the model research institution group and the individual research institution” is adopted, the degree of the deviation is determined depending on which threshold level is exceeded.

  Here, when the degree of freedom is 3, the threshold for testing is 11.34 when the significance level is 1%. In the example of FIG. 6, for example, the chi-square value of the research institution 05 is 12.2375 and exceeds the threshold value, so the alternative hypothesis “There is a difference between the model research institution group and the individual research institution” is adopted. The In this case, the P value, which is the probability that a chi-square value will appear, is 0.7%, and the significance level is 1% or less, so that the P value is 1% or less (corresponding to a preset significance level of 1%). The mark ★ 1 indicating that the threshold of the chi-square value is exceeded) is attached. The chi-square value of the research institution 08 is 16.30545, which also exceeds the threshold value, so the alternative hypothesis is adopted. The P value is 0.1%, which is smaller than the significance level 1% (beyond the chi-square value threshold corresponding to the preset significance level 1%). Moreover, the chi-square values of the local government average, private average, and research institutions 03, 04, and 09 greatly exceed the threshold value, and the alternative hypothesis is adopted. Since the P value is 0.0%, these are also marked with * 1.

  The chi-square value of the research institution 10 is 10.6921, which does not exceed the threshold at the significance level of 1%, but exceeds the threshold of 7.815 at the significance level of 5%, so the alternative hypothesis is still adopted. . The P value is 1.45% and the P value is 5% or less (between the threshold value of the chi-square value corresponding to the preset significance level of 1% and the threshold value of 5%. ) That represents) is attached.

  The chi-square values of the other research institutions 01.02.06 and 07 do not exceed the threshold at the significance level of 25%, so the null hypothesis "There is no difference between the model research institution group and the individual research institution" was adopted. The That is, it turns out that there is no gap between the research institution 01.02.06, 07 and the model average.

  FIG. 6B shows a model average, a local government average, a private average, and a ratio of options of 10 survey institutions in a band graph (arranged in the order of options 1, 2, 3 and 4 from the bottom of the figure). This makes it possible to intuitively see the difference between the model average and the distribution of research institutions.

  In the above explanation, regarding the “movement” of the certification survey, which is the implementation target item, the survey results for each option, which is the implementation result item, were analyzed. There are 55 items up to the group, and such analysis is performed for all 55 items. As a result, the local government can analyze the survey contents of the research organization in charge in detail and can provide accurate guidance and advice.

  FIG. 7 shows a deviation item list 19 (named as “name of survey organization / deviation survey item list” as a name example), which is output data of the deviation item specifying means 15. This deviation item list 19 is a summary of the results of analysis using chi-square values for all of the certified survey items (55 items from the first group to the fifth group in the certified 2009). 10) Separately, items that have been tested as having a deviation from the model average are extracted. That is, the deviation item specifying means 15 uses the chi-square value data of each implementation target item (survey item) of each implementer (survey institutions 01 to 10) tested by the chi-square test means 13 and uses the chi-square value data. The implementation target item exceeds the threshold of the significance level set in advance. Then, the specified item is output as a deviation item list 19 as shown in FIG.

  Here, a plurality of significance levels (1%, 5%, 10%, 25%) are set in the chi-square test means 13, and this significance level (the chi-square value corresponding to the preset significance level) is set. According to the threshold), the significance level is 1% or less (greater than or equal to the chi-square value threshold corresponding to the preset significance level of 1%), and the significance level is 5% or less (corresponds to the preset significance level of 1%). The difference between the threshold value of the chi-square value and the threshold value corresponding to the same 5%) is “significant” and the significance level is 10% or less (same as the threshold value of the chi-square value corresponding to the preset significance level of 5%) "There is a deviation" between the threshold corresponding to 10%) and the significance level is 25% or less (between the threshold of the chi-square value corresponding to the preset significance level of 10% and the threshold corresponding to 25%. Is classified as "Slightly misaligned" Lee square value, since the test whether entering into one of a plurality of threshold range defined by the plurality of significance level, the degree of deviation is found according to the result. Therefore, the deviation item specifying means 15 also specifies the survey items that fall in any of the above-mentioned categories for each category and outputs them as shown in FIG.

  In FIG. 7, the survey organization 07 is survey item 1-3 (meaning the third item of the first group: the same applies hereinafter) “turn over” is “deviation is extremely large” from the model average (significance level) 1% or less = Chi-square threshold corresponding to a preset significance level of 1%), survey item 2-6 “defecation” is “displaced” from model average (significance level of 10% or less = preset Survey item 2-11 “Removal of pants, etc.” is “slightly different” from the model average (significant) (significant level is between the threshold of chi-square value corresponding to significance level 5% and the threshold corresponding to 10%) The level is 25% or less = between the threshold value of the chi-square value corresponding to the preset significance level of 10% and the threshold value corresponding to 25%.

  The numerical value and sign in parentheses indicate the direction of the difference between the choice of the survey item identified as being shifted and the model average. For example, in Survey Item 2-2 “Move” (2 ▲, 3 ▲, 4 ▽), which was specified by Survey Organization 03 as “extremely large”, the ratio of the number of options 2 (watch, etc.) This means that the number ratio of Option 3 (partial assistance) is large compared to the model average ratio, and the ratio ratio of Option 4 (all assistance) is small compared to the model average ratio. ing.

  In the above comparison, a threshold ratio for determining large and small (above and below) is set in advance, and if it exceeds the threshold ratio for judging “above”, “under” is judged. If the threshold ratio is below the threshold ratio, ▽ may be output.

  When the data is configured in this way, the local government, which is a supervisor, can determine which accredited survey item of which survey organization is deviated from the model average with the degree of deviation. That is, the survey target survey items for each survey organization can be clarified in a list.

  The significance level and the P value mean “occurrence probability” and do not originally mean the magnitude of “deviation”. However, in FIG. 7, and FIG. 8, FIG. 9, and FIG. 11 described below, the significance level of 1% or less (★ 1 mark) is “extremely large (maximum)” and 5% or less (★ 2 mark). Is expressed as “deviation is large”, 10% or less (★ 3 mark) is “displaced”, and 25% or less (★ 4 mark) is expressed as “some deviation”. This is interpreted as a comparison result between the threshold value of the chi-square value corresponding to each significance level and the individual chi-square value corresponding to the P value, and the chi-square value itself represents the magnitude of “deviation”. Therefore, the above expression is adopted. On the other hand, even when considering the ease of understanding when educating and instructing the practitioners of research institutions, etc., the expression “deviation” is more effective than the expression “probability”. It is because it is thought that there is.

  FIG. 8 shows data for each research institution showing how each accredited survey item is related to the corresponding item of the model average. That is, it shows a deviation item comparison graph 20 (named “individual survey organization / search result comparison document with model”) as a name deviation example, which is output data of the item comparison means 16. The item comparison means 16 implements the model of the numerical value of each implementation result item in the implementation target item (accredited survey item) of the individual implementer (each survey organization), that is, the ratio to the total number of all options for each option. This is compared with the ratio of the corresponding options of the group of workers to the total number of all options.

  In the example of FIG. 8, the survey item 2-1 “transfer”, the survey item 5-3 “daily decision making”, the survey item 6-1 “ For each item of “independence degree of disabled elderly”, the ratio of each option to the total of all options is made to correspond to the ratio of the corresponding option of the model average to the total of all options in a pie chart. Further, each survey item is provided with marks ★ 1, ★ 2, ★ 3, and ★ 4 indicating the degree of deviation from the model average determined by the chi-square test means 13. In other words, the survey item 2-1 “transfer” is marked with “* 3” because the degree of deviation from the model average is “difference”, and the survey item 5-3 “daily decision making” is the model average. The mark ★ 2 is attached because the degree of deviation is “large deviation”, and the survey item 6-1 “Independence degree of the elderly with disabilities” was chi-square tested if there was no deviation from the model average. No mark is attached.

  With this data structure, each research institution can be informed of the presence or absence of deviation from the model average and the degree of deviation for each research item, and the ratio of each option can be compared with the model institution. Can be presented in a graph. For this reason, it is not necessary to examine detailed numerical values, and the degree of deviation from the model average becomes clear at a glance, and individual advice for each research institution can be given accurately.

  Although FIG. 8 illustrates three survey items, it is of course possible to output data for other survey items. That is, all 55 survey items conducted by a certain survey organization may be output, or data may be output centered on the items specified by the deviation item specifying means 15.

  FIG. 9 shows the contents of the effect analysis comparison graph 21 (named as “name of the survey result effect analysis comparison material before and after the implementation of optimization measures” as an example), which is output data of the state change comparison means 17. Is shown. The state change comparison means 17 is a numerical value of each implementation result item in the implementation target item (survey item) of the individual implementer (each survey organization) identified by the deviation item identification unit 15, that is, all the options for each option. The ratio of the total number of cases is compared with the ratio of the same individual implementer (research institution) to the total number of all options by the same option implemented before a predetermined period. When paired in this way, it is possible to analyze the degree of effect before and after the implementation of the optimization measures (education and guidance for the research organization or investigator).

  In the example of FIG. 9, each item of the survey item 2-1 “transfer”, the survey item 5-3 “daily decision making”, and the survey item 6-1 “independence degree of the elderly with disabilities” in the survey organization 10 is as follows. The numerical value (ratio) of each option is compared with the pie chart before the implementation of the optimization measure (left side in the figure) and after the implementation (right side in the figure). In addition, in the example shown in the figure, marks ★ 1, ★ 2, ★ 3, and ★ 4 indicating the degree of deviation from the model average are attached before (on the left side in the figure) and after (on the right side in the figure), respectively. Also shows the improved state of the degree of deviation.

  For example, for Survey Item 2-1 “Transfer”, the deviation from the model average was marked with “There is a deviation” * 3 before implementation of the optimization measure. Since the chi-square test is carried out if there is no deviation, no mark is given to indicate the degree of deviation. Regarding survey item 5-3 “Daily decision making”, the degree of deviation from the model average was marked with “Large deviation” * 2 before implementation of the optimization measures. The degree of deviation from the model average is marked with “a little deviation”. In other words, for these survey items, after the optimization measure is implemented, the deviation from the model average is reduced or eliminated. In addition, it is possible to confirm which option is improved. From these facts, it is clear that optimization measures were implemented appropriately.

  On the other hand, survey item 6-1 “independence degree of the elderly with disabilities” did not deviate from the model average before implementation of the optimization measures, but after implementation, the degree of deviation from the model average “Slightly misaligned” mark 4 is attached. In other words, it is clear that the deviation from the model average is slightly increased after the implementation of the optimization measure.

  From these, by outputting the effect analysis data as shown in FIG. 9, it is possible to specifically analyze something if the optimization measure has been properly implemented or there is a problem.

  The above is an example of an accredited research institution as the practitioner, but the same applies to cases where the practitioner is an accredited researcher.

  In that case, all but the practitioner will be the same as the accredited research institution. In addition, as each analysis data, as a name example, the implementation result distribution table is "Survey item distribution table by survey item / surveyor", the deviation item list is "Survey item / deviation survey item list", model and Can be named “Individual investigator / model comparison result data” and effect analysis comparison data “Individual investigator / result analysis comparison data before and after implementation of optimization measures”. A summary is shown in column A of FIG.

  The explanation so far explained the case of analyzing the accreditation survey work in the long-term care insurance business, but as shown in Fig. 12, the long-term care insurance business provided accreditation examination work, care management work, and service provision as well as the accreditation survey work. There are business, actual condition grasping business, business planning business, cost effectiveness analysis business, etc., and this business analysis system can also be applied to these business. The above correspondence is shown in FIG. 13 (accreditation survey, accreditation examination), FIG. 14 (care management, service provision), FIG. 15 (actual situation grasp, business plan) and FIG. 16 (cost-effectiveness analysis).

  10 and 11 show the case where the certification examination work is analyzed by this work analysis system. The certification review is the primary level of care required (non-applicable, support required 1, 2, required care 1 to 5 required) based on the standard time required for nursing care certification calculated by the computer based on the results of the certification survey. The judgment result is examined and a secondary judgment is made. This examination is a nursing care certification examination committee (hereinafter referred to as a panel) consisting of health, medical, and welfare specialists that comprehensively confirms the contents of the certification survey results, primary judgment results, doctor's opinion, and special instructions. It is determined whether or not care is required, and if care is required, how much care is required. Then, based on the judgment of the nursing care certification examination committee, a nursing care (support required) authorization is performed by a local government that is an insurer. Therefore, this accreditation work must be performed appropriately. In other words, the examination work contents are analyzed so that the examination results do not vary from one panel to another, and depending on the analysis results, guidance and advice from the local government that manages and supervises the board is provided. It is also necessary to do it.

  As a result of accreditation examination work, the primary judgment result of the degree of care required will be the secondary judgment result as it is “no change”, and the minor judgment required for the secondary judgment result will be lighter than the primary judgment result In addition, there is a “severe change” in which the degree of care required of the secondary determination result becomes heavier than the primary determination result, and it is not preferable that the number of these results varies for each panel.

  Here, the determination results of “no change”, “slight change”, and “severe change” occur for each degree of care required of the primary determination result. That is, as described above, as described above, there are stages from non-applicable, support 1, 2 required, care required 1 to care required 5, and “No change”, “Minor change”, “Severe change” These determination results occur at each of the above stages. For example, a determination result of “no change” may occur at all stages. “Minor changes” may occur in all other stages except non-applicable. Furthermore, the “severe change” may occur in all other stages except the degree of care 5.

  Therefore, for each of the stages from non-applicable, support 1 or 2, requiring care 1 to need care 1 to need care 5 and all categories totaled as primary determination results, “no change”, “slight change”, “ By accumulating the judgment results of “severe changes” for each panel and performing a chi-square test on the difference between the value of the panel and the model average, it becomes possible to analyze this certification examination work in detail. The model average means an average value of a plurality of model committees. A model board is a board that, for example, has been thoroughly inspected by auditors and verified in advance that appropriate accreditation is being conducted. That is.

  In addition, FIG. 10 shows an implementation result distribution table (named as “severity change result distribution table by primary judgment category / consultation body” as an example of the name) in the accreditation review. The total value of the bodies 01 to 10 is used.

  Here, a plurality of practitioners who carry out a certification examination, which is a common task, are a plurality of boards. In the example of FIG. 10, the committees 01 to 10 are shown as individual implementers, and an average value of a plurality of model committees is shown as a model average. The plurality of implementation target items are all categories, non-applicable, support 1, 2 required, care required 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the category of the primary determination result to be examined. In the example of FIG. 10, the case where the implementation target item is “primary determination: all categories” is shown. And the implementation result items that represent the implementation results as numerical values are as follows: “Minor change” number, “No change” number, “Severe change” number from the primary judgment result to the secondary judgment result, and their ratio Is provided to the chi-square calculation means 12 from the work execution result data storage means 11 of FIG.

  The chi-square calculating means 12 calculates a chi-square value representing the degree of deviation between the model average and each panel by the same method as described above. That is, first, an id is assigned to each of the implementation result items “slight change”, “no change”, and “severe change”. That is, here, id is “slight change”, “no change”, and “severe change”. Then, the actually measured frequency A [id] for each id is extracted from the occurrence frequency (measured frequency) for each id and the theoretical frequency. Next, the theoretical frequency B [id] for each id to be analyzed is calculated by the above equation (2) using the model average measured frequency for each id.

  Thereafter, by using the actually measured frequency A [id] for each id and the theoretical frequency B [id] for each id, a chi-square value X ^ 2 [id] for each id is calculated by the above equation (3). Further, the chi-square value X ^ 2 for each conference is obtained by summing the chi-square values X ^ 2 [id] for each id obtained by the above equation (3).

  The chi-square values of the respective panels 01 to 10 thus obtained are sent to the chi-square test means 13 and tested using a preset significance level, and the degree of deviation from the model average is obtained. It is done.

  As described above, the chi-square test means 13 is set with the degree of freedom n and the significance level α. The degree of freedom n is a value obtained by subtracting −1 from the number of ids. In the example of FIG. 10, the degree of freedom n is 2. The significance level α is set to 25% (α = 0.25), 10% (α = 0.1), 5% (α = 0.05), 1% (α = 0.01), Test whether the null hypothesis is rejected or accepted against the significance level.

  Here, when the degree of freedom is 2, the threshold is 9.210 when the significance level is 1%. In the example of FIG. 10, for example, the chi-square value of the panel 07 is 24.83491, which exceeds the threshold value, so the alternative hypothesis “there is a difference between the model implementer group and the individual implementer” is adopted. The In this case, the P value, which is the probability that the chi-square value will appear, is 0.0%, and the significance level is 1% or less. Therefore, the P value is 1% or less (the chi-square corresponding to the preset significance level of 1%). A mark ★ 1 indicating that the value is equal to or greater than a threshold value is attached.

  The threshold when the degree of freedom is 2 and the significance level is 5% is 5.991. The chi-square value of panel 09 is 8.923228, which does not exceed the threshold at the significance level of 1%, but exceeds the threshold of 5.991 at the significance level of 5%, so the alternative hypothesis is still adopted. . Further, the P value is 1.2%, and the P value is 5% or less (between the threshold of the chi-square value corresponding to the preset significance level of 1% and the threshold corresponding to 5%. The mark * 2 indicating that there is) is attached.

  The threshold when the degree of freedom is 2 and the significance level is 10% is 4.605. The chi-square value of the panel 08 is 5.392933, and the chi-square value of the panel 10 is 5.376959. These do not exceed the threshold at the significance level of 5%, but exceed the threshold of 4.605 at the significance level of 10%, so the alternative hypothesis is still adopted. The P value is 6.7% and 6.8%, and the P value is 10% or less (corresponding to 10% of the threshold of the chi-square value corresponding to the preset significance level of 5%) Mark ★ 3 indicating that it is between the threshold values to be recorded).

  Since the chi-square values of the other research institutions 01 to 06 do not exceed the threshold value at the significance level of 25%, the null hypothesis “There is no difference between the model implementer group and the individual implementer” is adopted. That is, it turns out that there is no gap between the panel 01-06 and the model average.

  Fig. 10 (b) shows the model average and the results of certification examination of each panel 01-10 in a band graph (arranged in the order of "Minor change", "No change", "Severe change" from the bottom of the figure). Yes. This makes it possible to intuitively see the difference in distribution between the model average and each panel.

  In the above explanation, the implementation target items are “all categories” of the certification examination, and the certification examination results “Minor change”, “No change”, “Severe change”, which are the implementation result items, were analyzed. As described above, since there are not only all categories but also non-applicable, support 1 and 2, need care 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 items, such analysis is performed for all the above items. As a result, the local government can analyze in detail the examination contents of the accredited certification body in charge and can provide appropriate guidance and advice.

  FIG. 11 shows a deviation item list 19 (named as “by conference type / deviation severity change item list [primary determination category]”) as output data, which is output data of the deviation item specifying means 15. Yes. As in the case of the survey items shown in FIG. 7, all of the primary determination categories, non-applicable, support 1, 2, need for care 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 were analyzed by chi-square values. The results are summarized, and items that have been verified as having a deviation from the model average are extracted for each individual implementer (conference). In other words, the deviation item specifying unit 15 performs the implementation target item (examination) in which the chi-square value exceeds the threshold corresponding to the preset significance level for each person (conferences 01 to 10) tested by the chi-square test unit 13. Item). Then, the specified items are output as a shift item list as shown in FIG.

  A plurality of significance levels (1%, 5%, 10%, 25%) are set in the chi-square test means 13, and according to this significance level (threshold value of chi-square value corresponding to a preset significance level). , Significance level 1% or less (greater than the threshold of the chi-square value corresponding to the preset significance level 1%) is “deviation is extremely large”, Significance level 5% or less (the chi-square corresponding to the preset significance level 1%) The threshold value is 5% and the threshold value is 5%), and the significance level is 10% or less (the chi-square value threshold value corresponding to the preset significance level of 5% is 10%). “There is a deviation” between the corresponding threshold values) and the significance level is 25% or less (the chi-square value threshold value corresponding to the preset significance level of 10% is between the threshold value corresponding to the same 25%) Was classified as “Slightly misaligned”. According to the degree of deviation determined depending on whether the chi-square value of the test object falls within one of a plurality of threshold ranges determined by the plurality of significance levels, the deviation item specifying means 15 determines whether the examination falls within one of the above-described categories. Items are specified and output as shown in FIG.

  In FIG. 11, for example, in the panel 06, the examination item “non-applicable” is “the deviation is extremely large” from the model average (significant level 1% or less), and the examination item “care required 5” is the model average. This means that “there is a deviation” (significant level of 10% or less), and the examination item “care required 3” is “a little deviation” from the model average (significant level of 25% or less).

  The numerical values and signs in parentheses indicate the direction of the difference between the examination results “Minor change”, “No change”, “Severe change” and the model average in the examination item specified as being shifted. For example, the review item “Not applicable” (No change ▽, Severity ▲) that was identified as “Excessive deviation” in the panel 09 is compared with the model average ratio of “No change”. This means that the ratio of the number of small “severe changes” is large compared to the ratio of the model average.

  When the data is configured in this way, the local government, which is a supervisor, can determine which examination item of which panel is deviating from the model average with respect to the degree of deviation. That is, the examination target examination items for each panel can be clarified in a list.

  In addition to this, although not shown in the figure, to each panel, in the same way as the data structure shown in FIG. 8, the relationship between each certified examination item and the corresponding examination item of the model average is presented. Data can be created. That is, the item comparison graph 20 which is output data of the item comparison means 16 and is different from the model average (named as “named example,“ for individual panel, by primary judgment category / material for comparison of results of serious change with model ”) ) Can be created. In this case, the item comparison means 16 determines the numerical value of each implementation result item in the implementation target item (accreditation examination item) of each individual implementer (each panel), that is, each certification examination result ("mild change", "no change" ”,“ Severe change ”), and the ratios of the corresponding certification review results (“ mild change ”,“ no change ”,“ severe change ”) of the model panel group.

  By adopting such a data structure, it is possible to notify each panel of the existence of the deviation from the model average and the degree of deviation for each examination item, and to compare the ratio of each examination item with the model average. Can be presented in a graph. For this reason, it is not necessary to examine detailed numerical values, and the degree of deviation from the model average becomes clear at a glance, and individual advice for each panel can be given accurately.

  Similarly, although not shown in the drawings, the effect analysis comparison graph 21 which is the output data of the state change comparison means 17 (as an example name, “material change effect analysis comparison material before and after the implementation of optimization measures for individual panel / primary judgment category”) Can be created with the same data structure as in FIG. In this case, the state change comparison unit 17 determines the numerical value of each implementation result item in the implementation target item (accreditation examination item) of the individual implementer (each panel) identified by the deviation item identification unit 15, that is, each certification examination result. ("Minor change", "No change", "Severe change") The same accreditation results ("Minor change", "Change") conducted by the same individual practitioner (consultant) before the specified period, with different ratios “None”, “Severe change”) Contrast with another ratio. In this way, it is possible to analyze the degree of effect before and after the implementation of optimization measures (advice and guidance to the panel). And if a proper measure is implemented appropriately or there is a problem, something can be analyzed concretely. The above summary is shown in column B of FIG.

  In the above, “Primary judgment category” is taken as an example of multiple implementation target items, but the implementation target items are “application category (new, updated, changed, etc.)” and “current situation (home, facility, etc.)” The same can be applied to the case.

  In that case, everything except the implementation target items is the same as described above. In addition, as each analysis document, as an example of the name, the implementation result distribution table is `` Severity change result distribution table by application category / panel '' or `` Severity change result distribution table by current situation / panel '', The list of deviation items is “List by Category / Minor severity change items [Application category]” or “List of severity change items by Council / Current situation]” For the panel, by application category, model comparison results for severe changes with models, for individual committees, by current status, model for comparison of results of minor changes with models, and for effect analysis comparison documents It can be named “Comparison Materials for Analyzing Severity Change Effect before and after Implementation of Optimization Measures by Body / Application Category” and “Comparison Materials for Analysis of Severity Change Effects before and after Implementation of Optimization Measures by Individual Situation”. . A summary is shown in column B of FIG.

  Next, the case where this business analysis system is also used for analysis of care management business will be described.

  In care management, a home care support establishment or a regional comprehensive support center (hereinafter referred to as a care management organization) creates a care plan based on the certified level of care required. That is, the necessity of services such as “visiting nursing care”, “visiting bathing nursing care”, “visiting nursing care”, etc., according to the state image consisting of a combination of the mental and physical condition of the applicant requiring nursing care and the financial power of nursing care Create a plan that includes service costs per person (benefits). Care managers at home care support establishments and regional comprehensive support centers need to create care plans based on understanding and learning of care plan preparation texts issued by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Which care manager prepares a care plan for those who want to use services that have the same status image (combination of the level of care required, psychosomatic state (disability and dementia status, etc.), nursing power, and economic power, etc.) Even so, the ideal care plan should be created (leveling care management). In addition, representatives of local government (insurers) staff, home care support establishments / comprehensive support centers, etc. are responsible for the preparation of care plans for each care management organization (home care support establishment / community support center) and each care manager. It is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to improve understanding of the above care plan creation method and level the care plan after quantitatively grasping the trends.

  When these are applied to this business analysis system, the status image corresponds to the work execution target item, each service item mentioned above corresponds to the work execution result item, and the average service usage per person is the numerical value representing the result. Expenses (average benefit costs) are used.

  The above state image consists of a combination of psychosomatic state, nursing power and economic power.The psychosomatic state consists of the degree of care required, the degree of independence of the elderly with dementia, the degree of independence of the elderly with disabilities, etc. It is determined only by elderly couples and whether there is a family living together, etc., and economic power is determined based on a predetermined premium level. A plurality of such state images are set, and for each of these state images, the difference between each care management engine and the model average of the plurality of model care management engines is calculated using the chi-square calculation means 12 with the same data structure as in FIGS. And the chi-square test means 13. Here, the model care management organization group selects and registers a care management organization that is familiar with the care plan manual and can create a correct care plan.

  That is, as in FIGS. 6 and 10, for each state image, the model average (average value of the model care management organization) and the care management organization to be analyzed are plotted on the vertical axis, and “visiting care” and “visit bathing” on the horizontal axis. Service types such as “nursing care”, “visiting nursing”,... Are arranged, and the model average and the average benefit cost per person and the ratio of each care type of each care management organization are used arranged in a matrix. From this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each care management engine with respect to the model average.

  The chi-square value for each care management organization calculated in this way is determined by the chi-square test means 13 based on a preset significance level and the degree of freedom determined from the number of service types, and whether or not there is a deviation from the model average. The degree is examined for each care management organization. Implementation results distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a) and 10 (b) (as example names, “average distribution of per-capita benefit costs by state image, care management organization, service type”) Named).

  Similarly to the above-described accreditation survey and accreditation examination, the deviation item specifying means 15 displays a deviation item list 19 that displays a list of deviation items (status images) for each care management organization (for example, " A comparison graph 20 with a model average (named “for individual care managers and models”). Comparison of the results of the care plan results [service type version] ”, and the effect analysis comparison comparing the numerical values for each service item before and after the implementation of the optimization measures at the same care management organization by means of the state change comparison means 17 Graph 21 (For example, “For individual care management organizations, care plan effect analysis comparison material before and after implementation of optimization measures [Service Type version] "and be named) can output a. The above summary is shown in column C of FIG.

  The above is an example of “service type” as an implementation result item. However, when the implementation result item is “service subcategory item by service type (physical care, home care, etc. in case of visiting care)” The same can be applied.

  In that case, everything except the implementation result items is the same as described above. In addition, for each analysis material, as a name example, the implementation result distribution table is `` average benefit cost distribution table per person by state image, care management organization, service type, service subcategory item '', and the deviation item list is `` “List of Care Management Organizations, Service Types, Displacement Service Subcategory Items”, Model Comparison Materials for “Individual Care Manager Organizations / Model Care Plan Results Comparison Material [Service Subcategory Version]”, and Effect Analysis Comparison Material Can be named as “Care Plan Effect Analysis Comparison Material [Service Detail Classification Version]” before and after implementation of optimization measures for individual care management organizations. A summary is shown in column C of FIG.

  Further, in the above, the care management organization is taken as an example of the business practitioner, but the same can be applied to the case where the business practitioner is the care manager. In the following, a model is a model care manager group, and care managers who are familiar with the care plan manual and can create a correct care plan are selected and registered.

  In that case, all but the practitioner will be the same as the care management organization. In addition, for each analysis material, as an example of the name, the implementation result distribution table is "Average benefit cost distribution table per person by state image / care manager / service type" or "By state image / care manager / service type"・ Average benefit cost distribution per person by service subcategory item ”, deviation item list is“ by care manager / deviation service type table ”,“ by care manager / deviation service subcategory item list ”, and comparison with model Materials for “care plan result comparison material with individual care manager / model [service type version]” and “care plan result comparison material with individual care manager / model [service subcategory version]”, and effect analysis comparison material “For individual care managers / care plan effect analysis comparison materials [service type version] before and after implementation of optimization measures” and “individual care managers” It can be termed only-optimization measures carried out before and after care plan benefit analysis contrast material [service subdivision Edition] ". A summary is shown in column C of FIG.

  Next, a case where this business analysis system is also used for analysis of service provision business will be described.

  Services provided include home care services (visiting care, home-visit nursing, outpatient care, etc.), home-prevention services, facility services, community-based services, etc., and there are over 50 types. Each service provider provides services according to the care plan created by the care manager. Each service is subdivided into 6-digit codes called benefit detail codes, and the number of types of codes exceeds 20,000. For example, in the case of a home care service, which is one of the home care services, it is classified into physical care and housework assistance, etc., and further subdivided according to the service provision time. Remuneration obtained by business operators for monthly billing) is determined. The care manager refers to the status image of the service user (combination of the level of care required (the upper limit of the service usage amount is determined for each degree of care required), mental and physical condition, nursing power, and economic power (self-pay limit)). Thus, a care plan is created while considering that the total cost for each service detail unit does not exceed the service usage limit. Based on this, each service provider provides the designated service content faithfully. For service users who have the same status image (combination of the level of care required, mental and physical conditions (states of disability and dementia, etc.), nursing power, economic power, etc.), the same service content regardless of the care manager Is ideally required (equalization of service provision). In addition, the local government (insurer) staff quantitatively grasps the service provision contents of various service providers (understanding at the level of detailed classification, etc.) and then achieves a precise effect for leveling the service provision. It is necessary to provide practical education and guidance.

  When these are applied to this business analysis system, the status image is applicable to the business execution target item, the service detailed classification item for each service type described above is applicable to the business execution result item, and a numerical value indicating the result is one. The average service usage cost (average benefit cost) per person is used.

  The above state image consists of a combination of psychosomatic state, nursing power and economic power.The psychosomatic state consists of the degree of care required, the degree of independence of the elderly with dementia, the degree of independence of the elderly with disabilities, etc. It is determined only by elderly couples and whether there is a family living together, etc., and economic power is determined based on a predetermined premium level. A plurality of such state images are set, and for each of these state images, the difference between each service provider and the model average of the plurality of model service providers is determined by the same data structure as in FIGS. Calculation is performed by the square calculation means 12 and the chi-square test means 13. Here, the model service provider group selects and registers companies that provide almost all services under the care plan of the model care manager or model care manager.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each state image, the model average (the average value of the model service provider group) and the service provider to be analyzed are plotted on the vertical axis and the visiting care is plotted on the horizontal axis. If so, arrange service subcategories such as “physical care”, “housekeeping assistance”, etc., and model averages and average per capita service costs for each service subcategory of each service provider And the data which arranged the ratio on the matrix are used. From this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each care management engine with respect to the model average.

  The chi-square value for each service provider calculated in this manner is determined by the chi-square test means 13 from a preset significance level (threshold value of chi-square value corresponding to the significance level) and the number of service subclassification items. Based on the degree of freedom, each service provider verifies whether or not there is a deviation from the model average. Implementation result distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a), 10 (b). As an example name, the distribution table of average benefit costs per person by state image, by service provider, and by service sub-category Can be obtained).

  Similarly to the above-described certification survey and certification examination, the deviation item specifying means 15 displays a deviation item list 19 in which deviation items for each service provider are displayed in a list (for example, “By Service Provider / Difference”). A comparison graph 20 with a model average (which is named “service subcategory list”) or a model average obtained by comparing numerical values for each service subclassification item with the model average by means of the item comparison means 16 "Comparison of service provision results with models for service providers"), or by means of state change comparison means 17 before and after implementation of optimization measures by the same service provider Contrasting effect analysis comparison graph 21 (as an example, “Providing services for individual service providers before and after implementation of optimization measures Can output a named are) and results analysis contrast material ". A summary is shown in column D of FIG.

  Next, the case where this business analysis system is used also for the analysis of the actual condition grasp business which a local government employee performs is demonstrated.

  Employees (mainly in charge of planning) of the long-term care insurance department of local governments (insurers) are certified persons (those who are certified as requiring long-term care) and beneficiaries (those who use long-term care insurance services) and are fewer than certified persons ) Needs to be understood. Specific contents of the work to grasp the actual situation include the age, sex, degree of care required, degree of disability independence, degree of independence of the dementia, and ability of care in the entire municipality or in multiple living areas within the municipality. (Household composition, etc.) ・ Economic power (insurance premium level, etc.), comparison between living areas, and changes over time. In addition, the results of the above-mentioned grasp of the actual situation are also used as basic materials for formulating the business plan described below. Local government staff have a prominence in the composition of the certified person / recipient's age, gender, degree of care required, degree of disability independence, degree of independence of dementia, nursing power, economic power, etc. It is necessary to accurately and effectively review the business plan, etc. after grasping timely and quantitatively about the specific location and the like.

  When these are applied to this work analysis system, the work execution target item corresponds to either age group and gender, or a combination of them, and the work execution result item includes the above-mentioned nursing care category and disability independence category. The dementia independence degree category, the nursing ability category, the economic category, etc. are applicable, and the number of persons in each category described above is used as a numerical value representing the result.

  A plurality of combinations of such age classes and genders are set, and for each of these combinations, each living area within the local government and the entire local government that is a pre-set model group are configured with the same data structure as in FIGS. A deviation from any one of the average, the assigned prefecture average, and the national average is calculated by the chi-square calculation means 12 and the chi-square test means 13.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each combination of age group and gender, the average (local average, etc.) and the living area to be analyzed are plotted on the vertical axis, and the care required category is plotted on the horizontal axis. “Non-applicable, support 1, 2 required, nursing care 1-5”, etc., each category if disability independence, each category if independence of dementia, if nursing power `` Only elderly couples are living together except elderly people '' and if it is economic power, each division at the insurance premium stage is placed, and the average number of people for each division in each living area And the data which arranged the ratio on the matrix are used. Then, from this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each care management organization with respect to the average (local average, etc.).

  The chi-square value for each living sphere calculated in this way is based on the degree of freedom determined by the chi-square test means 13 based on the preset significance level and the number of divisions of each work execution result item (care-requiring category, etc.). The existence of deviation from the average (average of the entire local government, etc.) and the degree of deviation are verified for each living area. Implementation results distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a), 10 (b) (as examples of names, “By age group & gender combination / by life sphere / Nursing care degree distribution table”, “ Age group & gender combination / living sphere / disability independence distribution table ”, age group / gender combination / living sphere / dementia independence distribution table”, age group / gender combination / living sphere Area and care power distribution table ”and“ age class & gender combination / living area / economic power distribution table ”).

  In addition, as in the above-described accreditation survey and accreditation examination, the deviation item specifying means 15 allows the deviation items for each living sphere (classification of care required for each combination of age group and gender, disability independence degree classification, dementia independence degree classification) , Nursing power categories and economic power categories) as a list of deviation items 19 (as examples of names, “Separate age group / deviation age class & gender combination & deviation care category list”, “By sphere of life”・ Separation age class & gender combination & deviation disorder independence degree classification list 」,「 Different age class & gender age group & gender combination & deviation dementia independence degree classification list 」、「 Life area / gap age class & "Gender combination & shift care ability category list" and "life area / shift age class & gender combination & shift economic power category list", etc.), or by means of item comparison means 16 (local government) Overall average etc.) Comparison graph 20 with the average number of persons compared by type of nursing care, etc. (For example, “For individual living spheres / community averages with age group & gender combination, nursing care comparison material”, “Individual Material for life sphere / compared to age group & gender combination with municipal average, disability independence comparison material ”,“ Data for age group / gender combination with city average / local combination, dementia independence comparison data ” , “Individual Living Areas / By Age Group & Gender Combination with Local Average, and Nursing Care Comparing Materials” and “Individual Living Area / Local Municipal Average with Age Group & Gender Combination, Economic Comparing Materials” And the effect analysis comparison graph 21 (as a name example) that compares the latest business plan period and the previous business plan period of the target number of persons in each division in the same living area by the state change comparison means 17 " History change data for different living spheres, age groups & gender combinations, nursing care classifications, "Historical change materials for individual life areas, age classes & gender combinations, disability independence", "Individual living areas "History change data for dementia independence by age group & gender combination", "History change data for age group & gender combination, care ability history" and "Individual life area / age class" & Gender combination / Economic power history change data ”etc.) can be output. The above summary is shown in column E of FIG.

  Next, a case where this business analysis system is also used for analysis of business planning work performed by local government staff will be described.

  In business planning, based on the results of the above-mentioned grasp of the actual situation, how to develop each service by considering the nursing care insurance service as a service infrastructure for the whole local government and each living area (service provision amount) And a specific plan for the project cost). In the long-term care insurance, all local governments formulate a business plan once every three years and calculate the insurance premiums collected from the insured among the residents in each period. Specifically, the fiscal year 2002 to 2002 is the first nursing care insurance business plan, the fiscal year 2003 to 2005 is the second term, the fiscal year 2006 to 2008 is the third term, and the fiscal year 2009 to 2011 is the fourth term. When formulating a business plan, it is necessary to organize a council consisting of experts in the fields of health and welfare and socio-economic fields, etc., and formulate it with careful discussion based on the results of grasping the actual situation. In addition, it is necessary to manage the progress of various service infrastructure developments (business results) every fiscal year or semi-annual, and the above council discusses the cause of the difference between the business plan and business results and the resolution. There is a need to continue to. Local government officials should make timely and quantitative assessments of the status of maintenance for each type of service for the entire local government and living spheres, including the delay in progress and the presence or absence of excessive maintenance. It is necessary to review the business plan accurately and effectively.

  When these are applied to this business analysis system, the service implementation items correspond to service major categories (home care services, preventive services, facility services, etc.), and the business implementation result items include the service types for each service major category described above. As the numerical value representing the result, the business progress rate as the ratio of the actual value of the service cost or the actual value of the benefit cost to the business plan value is used.

  For each of these major service categories, the same data structure as in FIGS. 6 and 10, and the business progress rate as a ratio of the number of times for each service type or the benefit plan to the business plan value, and the ideal progress in the business plan The deviation from the rate (100%) is calculated by the chi-square calculation means 12 and the chi-square test means 13.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each major service category, the vertical axis indicates the ideal progress status and the life zone to be analyzed, and the horizontal axis indicates “visiting nursing care”, “visiting bathing nursing care”, “ Service type items such as “visiting nursing care”, etc. are arranged, and the ideal progress rate (100%) and the number of times for each service type or the actual value of benefit costs and their business plans for each service area The data that arranges the business progress rate as a ratio on the matrix is used. From this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each living area with respect to the ideal progress rate.

  Based on the chi-square test means 13 for the chi-square value calculated for each living area in this way, based on a preset significance level and the degree of freedom determined from the number of service types, Test the degree of deviation for each living area. Implementation results distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a) (b) (as example names, “Business plan progress rate distribution table by service major category, life zone, service type”) Named).

  Similarly to the above-described certification survey and certification examination, the deviation item specifying means 15 displays a deviation item list 19 (as an example of name) that displays a list of deviation items (service types, etc. whose progress has been delayed) for each living area. Comparison graph comparing output rate by service type with ideal progress rate (business plan value) by item comparison means 16 20 (named as “Examples for individual life spheres, classified by service majors / comparison with business plan values”), or by means of state change comparison means 17 for business plan optimization measures in the same life sphere Effect analysis comparison graph 21 comparing the progress rate by service type before and after the implementation (for example, “For individual living areas, by service category, by service type / History changes in the cost materials "and named) can output a. The above summary is shown in column F of FIG.

  Next, the case where this business analysis system is used also for the analysis of the cost-effectiveness analysis business which a local government employee performs is demonstrated.

  In the current trend of optimizing benefits, it is necessary to quantitatively grasp the cost effectiveness of nursing care insurance services. Specifically, the subjects who were “supported” at a certain point in time were tracked for 12 months or 24 months, and the status of changes over time was defined as the “deterioration rate”. “Cost” is calculated from long-term care benefit data (receipt data), and the ratio is calculated as cost effectiveness (deterioration rate / cost). In calculating the cost-effectiveness, it may be performed not only for “support required” but also for every category requiring care, and for all categories and preventive benefits (support 1 or 2 required) and care benefits (care required 1 to 5) It may be done separately. In addition, if these cost-effectiveness can be compared and analyzed for each living area within the local government, each home care support establishment or regional comprehensive support center, and each care manager, more specific cost-effectiveness can be achieved. There is a possibility of improvement. The local government (insurer) staff quantitatively assesses the cost-effectiveness situation and trends of care insurance services for each living area, and for each care management organization (home care support establishment / community support center) and care manager. After understanding, it is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance for the extraction and standardization of cost-effective care plan creation methods.

  When these are applied to this work analysis system, the work execution target item corresponds to the combination of age group and gender, etc., and the work execution result item corresponds to the cost-effectiveness analysis item for each type of care required, and represents the result. As numerical values, the deterioration rate and cost-effectiveness (= deterioration rate / cumulative benefit cost) in the predetermined evaluation period for each category requiring care at the start of evaluation are used. In the following, it is assumed that each content corresponds to each “/” delimiter.

  For each combination of age group and gender, the same data structure as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10 is used, and each living area / each care management organization / care manager in the local government and the average for the whole local government / model average for multiple model care management organizations / Deviations from the model average of a plurality of model care managers are calculated by the chi-square calculating means 12 and the chi-square test means 13.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each combination of age group and gender, the municipal average / model care management organization average / model care manager average and the analysis target living area / care management organization / care manager are Along the axis, the horizontal axis shows “all categories”, “preventive benefits”, “nursing care benefits”, “support 1, 2”, “care required 1-5”, etc. Model care management organization average / model care manager average and each living sphere / each care management organization / each care manager at the start of evaluation, the rate of deterioration and cost-effectiveness (= deterioration rate / cumulative benefits) for each nursing care category at the start of evaluation Data) arranged on a matrix. From this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each living area / each care management organization / each care manager with respect to the average of the whole municipality / model care management organization average / model care manager average.

  The chi-square value for each living area / care management organization / care manager calculated in this way is calculated by the chi-square test means 13 based on the significance level set in advance and the degree of freedom determined from the number of nursing care categories. / Model care management organization average / Model care manager average presence / absence of deviation and degree of deviation are verified for each living area / care management organization / care manager. 6 (a) (b) and FIG. 10 (a) (b), an implementation result distribution table (for example, when the numerical value representing the implementation result is a deterioration rate, “by age group & gender combination. “Deterioration rate distribution table by long-term care at the start of evaluation by life sphere”, “Deterioration rate distribution table by age group & gender combination, by care manager, and by long-term care required by evaluation start”, and “Age class & If the numerical value representing the results of the implementation is cost-effective, such as “gender combination / care manager / care manager classification at the start of evaluation”, etc. "Cost-effectiveness distribution table by nursing care category at the start of evaluation by sphere", "Cost-effective distribution table by nursing care category by age group & gender combination, by care management organization" and "Age class & Gender combination Care Segment cost-effective distribution tables in by manager and evaluation start time "named etc.) can be obtained.

  In addition, similar to the above-mentioned certification survey and certification examination, the deviation item specifying means 15 displays a list of deviation items for each living area / care management organization / care manager (classification of care required for each age group and gender combination). Displacement item list 19 (As a name example, if the numerical value indicating the result of the implementation is a deterioration rate, “List by life sphere / displacement age class & gender & displacement care need category list [deterioration rate]”, “care manager” It is named as “Institutional / Miscellaneous Age Class & Gender & Misalignment of Long-Term Care Required List [Deterioration Rate]”, “By Care Manager / Miscellaneous Age Class & Gender & Misalignment of Long-Term Care Required List [Deterioration Rate]”, etc. If the figures representing the results of the implementation are cost-effective, “Separate Age Group & Gender & Deviation Care Category List [Cost-Effective]”, “Care Management Institution / Shift Age Class & Gender & List of necessary care category Cost effective ”and“ care manager / deviation age class & gender & deviation care need list [cost effectiveness] ”, etc., or by means of item comparison 16 Comparison chart 20 comparing numerical values for each nursing care category with the institutional average / model care manager average (for example, if the numerical value representing the implementation result is a deterioration rate, “the age of the individual living area / local average” "Deterioration rate comparison data by class & gender / care-required category", "Individual care manager organization / model and age group & gender / deterioration rate comparison data by long-term care category", and "For individual care manager / model" Names such as age group & gender / deterioration rate comparison data by long-term care need ”, etc., and when the numerical value representing the implementation results is cost-effective, Cost-effectiveness comparison materials by age group & gender / care-requiring category, “Cost-effectiveness comparison materials by age group & gender / care-required category for individual care management organization” and “Individual care manager model” Before the implementation of optimization measures in the same living area / care manager / care manager by means of state change comparison means 17). And the effect analysis comparison graph 21 that compares the numerical value for each type of long-term care need and the number of long-term care required (as an example, if the numerical value representing the result of the implementation is a deterioration rate, " “Historical Change Data for Deterioration Rate by Individual”, “History Change Data for Deterioration Rate by Age Group & Gender / Nursing Care Category for Individual Care Management Organizations”, and “Individual Care Manager” If the numerical value representing the result of the implementation is cost-effective, it is called “Individual Living Area”. "Cost-effective history change data by age group & gender and nursing care category", "Cost-effective history change data by age group & gender and nursing care category before and after implementation of optimization measures for individual care managers" And “historical change data on cost-effectiveness for individual care managers before and after the implementation of optimization measures, etc.”. The above summary is shown in column G of FIG.

  As a result of the above, the local government, which is a supervisory supervisor, is the accredited research institute and accredited investigator who is the on-site department, the panel that conducts the accreditation review, the care management institution and care manager, the service provider, Each work execution result such as planning and cost-benefit analysis can be analyzed in detail, and appropriate optimization measures such as education, guidance and advice can be appropriately implemented according to the analysis result.

  In the explanation of the above invention, the supervisor is a local government and analyzes the results of business operations in the departments under its control, and creates materials for education and guidance to the field departments. The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, which supervises the management, can also be used as a supervisor to analyze the results of project implementation in each local government and create materials for education and guidance for all local governments. FIG. 17 (accreditation survey, accreditation examination), FIG. 18 (care management, service provision), FIG. 19 (understanding of actual conditions, business), when the supervisor is the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Plan) and FIG. 20 (cost-effectiveness analysis).

  In the following, a case will be described in which this business analysis system is also used for overall analysis, education and guidance of accredited survey work operated and managed by all local governments (all insurers) conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  As described above, in each local government, when an application for certification is made, a certified researcher of a certified research organization conducts a certification survey on the physical condition. At that time, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's jurisdiction will improve the understanding and optimization (leveling, etc.) of the qualification survey after quantitatively grasping the operational management status and trends for the qualification survey work of all local governments. Therefore, it is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to all local governments.

  When these are applied to this business analysis system, the items subject to work are accredited survey items (55 items from group 1 to group 5 in accreditation 2009) / disability independence / dementia independence / primary judgment, etc. In addition, each of the above-mentioned options representing the results of each certified survey, each category of two independence levels, and each category of primary determination correspond to the work execution result item, and the numerical value representing the result is classified according to the options of the certified survey results / 2 Use the number of cases in each of the two self-supporting categories / primary judgment categories.

  For each option of these certified survey items and each minute of the two independence or primary judgments, the difference between each municipality and the model average of a plurality of model municipalities is determined by the same data structure as in FIGS. Calculation is performed by the square calculation means 12 and the chi-square test means 13. A model local government selects and registers local governments who are familiar with accredited survey work and who have thorough instructional training for accredited survey institutions and authorized surveyors under their jurisdiction.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, the vertical axis represents the model average (the average value of the model local government) and each local government to be analyzed for each authorized survey item / two degree of independence / primary determination, and the horizontal axis The choices of the predetermined authorized survey items / two categories of independence and primary determination are arranged, and data in which the model average and the number of cases and the ratio of each choice and category of each municipality are arranged on a matrix are used. Then, from this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each local government with respect to the model average.

  The chi-square value for each municipality calculated in this way is converted into a degree of freedom determined by the chi-square test means 13 based on a preset significance level and the number of choices for each survey item / 2 independent degrees and the number of primary judgment categories. Based on this, each municipality is tested for the presence or absence of deviation from the model average and the degree of deviation. An implementation result distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a), 10 (b) can be obtained (named as “survey result distribution table by survey item / local government” as an example). .

  Further, the deviation item specifying means 15 outputs a deviation item list 19 (named as “local government / deviation survey item list” as a name example) that lists deviation items for each municipality, and item comparison means 16 Comparison chart 20 with model average compared with model average by comparison of two independent degrees and numerical values according to primary judgment by model average (as a name example “Survey results comparison model with model for individual local government” The effect analysis comparison graph 21 (compared to the number of certified survey items / two independence and primary judgments before and after the implementation of optimization measures in the same local government by the state change comparison means 17) As an example of the name, it is possible to output “named as“ comparison material for analysis of effect of survey results before and after implementation of optimization measures for individual local governments ””. The above summary is shown in the A column of FIG.

  Next, a case will be described in which this business analysis system is also used for overall analysis, education and guidance of accreditation examination business operated and managed by all local governments (all insurers) conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  As described above, the certification review in each local government is a care certification review committee consisting of health, medical and welfare specialists, which comprehensively confirms the contents of the primary judgment results, certification survey results, doctor's opinion, and special instructions. A secondary determination is made to determine whether care is required, and if care is required, how much care is required. At that time, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's competent department will quantitatively grasp the operational management status and trends of these all local governments for accreditation examination work, and then improve the understanding and optimization (leveling etc.) of the accreditation examination. Therefore, it is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to all local governments.

  When these are applied to this business analysis system, the items subject to business execution are primary judgment categories (all categories, preventive benefit categories, long-term care benefits categories, support needs 1 and 2, long-term care needs 1 to 5) / application categories (new, updated) Change) / current situation (home, facility, etc.), etc., the above-mentioned minor change items correspond to the work execution result items, and the numerical value indicating the result is the number of minor changes / number of no changes / severity Use the number of changes.

  The difference between each municipality and the model average of multiple model municipalities is determined by the same data structure as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10 for each of the above-mentioned work execution target items (primary judgment category, application category, current situation, etc.). Calculation is performed by the square calculation means 12 and the chi-square test means 13. A model local government selects and registers a local government where all staff in charge of the local government are familiar with accreditation examination work and thorough instructional education for the committee under its jurisdiction.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, the model average (average value of the model local government) and the local government to be analyzed are plotted on the vertical axis and “Minor change”, “ Severity change items such as “no change” and “severe change” are arranged, and data in which the model average and the number and ratio of each municipality change item of each municipality are arranged on a matrix are used. Then, from this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each local government with respect to the model average.

  The chi-square value calculated for each municipality in this way is determined by the chi-square test means 13 and the degree of freedom (2 = 3-1) determined from the preset significance level and the number of severity change items (three in the above example). ), Each municipality is tested for the presence or absence of deviation from the model average and the degree of deviation. Implementation results distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a) (b) (as examples of names, “Distribution table of severity change results by primary judgment category / local government”, “ “Distributed distribution table of severity change results by local government” and “distribution distribution table of severity change results by current situation / local government”).

  Similarly to the above-described accreditation survey, the deviation item specifying means 15 displays a deviation item list 19 that displays a list of deviation items for each municipality (for example, “By municipality / deviation primary judgment category & deviation severity change” "Item list", "Local government / deviation application category & deviation severity change item list" and "Local government / deviation current situation & deviation severity change item list") The comparison graph 20 with the model average comparing the numerical value (ratio, etc.) by item comparison means 16 with the severity change item with the model average (for example, “For individual local governments, by primary judgment category, severity with model "Comparison data for change results", "Comparison data for individual municipalities / by application category / model, and comparison data for minor changes with models" and "Comparison data for individual municipalities / by current status / comparison with results of severity change" The effect analysis comparison graph 21 (as an example of the name, comparing the numerical values (ratio, etc.) by the severity change items before and after the implementation of the optimization measures in the same local government by the state change comparison means 17 Material for comparative analysis of severity changes before and after implementation of optimization measures for individual municipalities / primary judgment categories ”,“ Material for comparative analysis of severity changes before and after implementation of optimization measures for individual municipalities ”and“ For individual municipalities ”・ It is possible to output “Severe change effect analysis comparison materials before and after implementation of optimization measures according to current situation”. The above summary is shown in column B of FIG.

  Next, a case will be described in which this business analysis system is used for overall analysis, education and guidance of care management business operated and managed by all local governments (all insurers) conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  As for care management in each local government, a home care support establishment or a regional comprehensive support center (hereinafter referred to as a care management organization) prepares a care plan based on the degree of care required as described above. At that time, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's jurisdiction department will quantitatively grasp the operational management status and trends for the care management work of all local governments, and then improve the understanding and optimization (leveling etc.) of care management. Therefore, it is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to all local governments.

  When these are applied to this business analysis system, the status image is applicable to the work execution target item, each service type described above is applicable to the work execution result item, and the average service usage per person is the numerical value representing the result. Expenses (average benefit costs) are used.

  The above state image consists of a combination of psychosomatic state, nursing power and economic power.The psychosomatic state consists of the degree of care required, the degree of independence of the elderly with dementia, the degree of independence of the elderly with disabilities, etc. It is determined only by elderly couples and whether there is a family living together, etc., and economic power is determined based on a predetermined premium level. At present, care power and economic power are not transmitted to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare as certification data, but it is assumed that they will be transmitted in the future.

  A plurality of such state images are set, and for each of these state images, the difference between each local government and the model average of the plurality of model local governments is calculated using the chi-square calculation means 12 and the chi-square. Calculated by the square test means 13. Model local governments are selected from local government staff who are well versed in care management work and have thorough instruction and training for the care manager organizations (home care support offices and regional comprehensive support centers) and care managers under their jurisdiction. And register.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each state image, the vertical axis represents the model average (average value of the model local government) and the local government to be analyzed, and the horizontal axis represents “visit nursing care” and “visit bathing nursing care”. , “Visiting care”,... Are arranged, and the model average and the average benefit cost per person for each service type and the ratio of each municipality on the matrix are used. Then, from this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each local government with respect to the model average.

  The chi-square value for each municipality calculated in this way is determined by the chi-square test means 13 based on a preset significance level and the degree of freedom determined from the number of service types, and whether or not there is a deviation from the model average. For each municipality. Implementation result distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a) (b) (name example: “Distribution table of average benefits per person by state image, by local government, by service type”) Can be obtained).

  Similarly to the above-described certification survey and certification examination, the deviation item specifying means 15 displays a deviation item list 19 that displays a list of deviation items for each municipality (for example, “registration service type list for each municipality”). Or a comparison graph 20 with the model average obtained by comparing the numerical value for each service type with the model average by means of the item comparison means 16 [Service type version] ”, or an effect analysis comparison graph 21 (as a name example) that compares numerical values according to service types before and after implementation of optimization measures in the same local government by the state change comparison means 17 Outputs “named as“ care type effect analysis comparison data [service type version] ”before and after implementation of optimization measures for individual municipalities) Or can. The above summary is shown in column C of FIG.

  The above is an example of “service type” as an implementation result item. However, when the implementation result item is “service subcategory item by service type (physical care, home care, etc. in case of visiting care)” The same can be applied.

  In that case, everything except the implementation result items is the same as described above. In addition, each analysis document has an implementation result distribution table as `` Actual benefit cost distribution table per person by state image, by local government, by service type, by service subcategory item '', "By Service Type, Disparity Service Subcategory List", Model Comparison Material is "For Individual Local Governments / Care Plan Result Comparison Material with Model Local Government [Service Subcategory Version]", and Effect Analysis Comparison Material is " It can be named “care plan effect analysis comparison material [service sub-classification version]” before and after implementation of optimization measures for individual local governments. A summary is shown in column C of FIG.

  Next, a case will be described in which this business analysis system is also used for overall analysis, education and guidance of service provision business operated and managed by all local governments (all insurers) conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  The contents of service provision are as described above. At that time, the department in charge of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare quantitatively grasps the operational management status and trends, etc. for the service provision work of all local governments, and then provides the service provision. It is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to all local governments in order to improve understanding and optimize (leveling, etc.).

  When these are applied to this business analysis system, the status image is applicable to the business execution target item, the service detailed classification item for each service type described above is applicable to the business execution result item, and a numerical value indicating the result is one. The average service usage cost (average benefit cost) per person is used.

  The above state image consists of a combination of psychosomatic state, nursing power and economic power.The psychosomatic state consists of the degree of care required, the degree of independence of the elderly with dementia, the degree of independence of the elderly with disabilities, etc. It is determined only by elderly couples and whether there is a family living together, etc., and economic power is determined based on a predetermined premium level. As in the case of the care management described above, the current nursing care power and economic power are not transmitted to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare as certification data, but it is assumed that they will be transmitted in the future.

  A plurality of such state images are set, and for each of these state images, the difference between each local government and the model average of the plurality of model local governments is calculated using the chi-square calculation means 12 and the chi-square. Calculated by the square test means 13. A model local government selects and registers a local government in which all staff in charge of the local government are familiar with service provision work and thorough instructional education for the service provider under their jurisdiction. It may be a model local government for care management.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each state image, the model average (average value of the model local government group) and the local government to be analyzed are taken on the vertical axis, and in the case of visiting care on the horizontal axis, Service sub-category items such as “physical care”, “household assistance”,... Are arranged, and the average average per capita and the ratio of each model for each service sub-category of the model average and each local government are arranged on a matrix. Use data. Then, from this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each local government with respect to the model average.

  The chi-square value for each municipality calculated in this way is set to a degree of freedom determined by the chi-square test means 13 based on a preset significance level (threshold value of chi-square value corresponding to the significance level) and the number of service sub-classification items. Based on this, each municipality is tested for the presence or absence of deviation from the model average and the degree of deviation. Implementation results distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a) (b) (name example: “Distribution table of average benefit costs per person by state image, by local government, by service sub-category”) Can be obtained).

  Similarly to the above-described accreditation survey, accreditation examination, and care management, the deviation item specifying means 15 displays a deviation item list 19 that displays a list of deviation items for each municipality (for example, “by municipality / by deviation state image”). And a comparison graph 20 with a model average (named as “individual” as a name example). The result of comparing the numerical value by service sub-category item before and after the implementation of optimization measures in the same local government by means of the state change comparison means 17 Analysis contrast graph 21 (as an example of the name, “Service providing effect analysis comparison material for individual local governments before and after implementation of optimization measures” Can output the put is). The above summary is shown in column D of FIG.

  Next, a case will be described in which this business analysis system is used for overall analysis, education, and guidance of the actual state grasping business operated and managed by all local governments (all insurers) conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  The staff (mainly in charge of planning) of the nursing care insurance department of the local government (insurer), as mentioned above, is a certified person (person who is certified as requiring nursing care) or a beneficiary (a person who uses the nursing care insurance service. It is necessary to make an effort to grasp the actual situation. At that time, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's jurisdiction will quantitatively grasp the operational management status and trends for the actual state grasping work of all local governments, and then improve understanding and optimization (leveling etc.) of the actual state grasping Therefore, it is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to all local governments.

  When these are applied to this work analysis system, the work execution target items correspond to the combination of age group and gender, etc., and the work execution result items include the above-mentioned nursing care category, disability independence category, dementia independence category, Nursing power classification, economic power classification, and the like are applicable, and the number of persons in each classification described above is used as a numerical value representing the result. As in the case of the care management and service provision described above, it is assumed that the nursing care power and economic power are not currently transmitted to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare as authorized data, but will be transmitted in the future.

  A plurality of combinations of such age classes and genders are set, and for each of these combinations, the local government and the prefecture average and national average as a model group set in advance by the same data structure as in FIG. 6 and FIG. Is calculated by the chi-square calculating means 12 and the chi-square test means 13.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each combination of age group and gender, the vertical axis represents each average (affiliated prefecture average, national average, etc.) and the municipality to be analyzed, and the horizontal axis represents the nursing care category. If it is "not applicable, support 1, 2 required, care required 1-5", etc., if the degree of disability independence, each category, if it is dementia independence, each category, if it is nursing power Each category, such as “Alone living alone, elderly couple only, living with non-elderly”, etc., and economic power, each category at the insurance premium stage, each average and each municipality subject to each category Data in which the number of persons and their ratio are arranged on a matrix is used. From this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each local government for each average (affiliated prefecture average, national average, etc.).

  The chi-square value calculated for each municipality in this way is calculated based on the degree of freedom determined by the chi-square test means 13 based on the preset significance level and the number of divisions of each work execution result item (such as a long-term care category). Each municipality is tested for whether or not there is a deviation from the average (prefectural average, national average, etc.). Implementation results distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a) (b) (as name examples, “Age group & gender combination / locality / care level distribution table”, “Age class” & Gender Combination / Locality / Disability Independence Distribution Table ”,“ Age & Gender Combination / Local Government / Dementia Independence Distribution Table ”,“ Age & Gender Combination / Locality / Nursing Care Distribution Table ” And “named by age group & gender combination / local government / economic power distribution table”).

  In addition, as described above, the deviation item specifying means 15 allows the deviation item for each municipality (the category of care required for each combination of age group and gender, disability independence degree classification, dementia independence degree classification, nursing ability classification, and economic power). Displacement item list 19 that displays a list of categories (for example, “Local government / deviation age class & gender combination & deviation care category list”, “Local government / deviation age class & gender combination & deviation disability independence) "Category List", "Different Age Group & Gender Combination & Displacement Dementia Independence Classification List", "Local Government / Differential Age Class & Gender Combination & Displacement Care Power Category List" and "Local Displacement Output age group & gender combination & deviation economic power category list etc.) or by item comparison means 16 to each average (belonging to prefecture average and national average, etc.) Comparison graph 20 with the average number of people (as examples, “For individual local governments, age group & sex combination, care level comparison materials”, “For individual local governments, age group & gender combination, disability independence level” “Comparison materials”, “Individual municipality / age group & gender combination / dementia independence comparison material”, “Individual municipality / age group & gender combination / care power comparison material” and “Individual municipality / age class & Output by comparison of the gender combination / economic power, etc.), or comparison of effect analysis by comparing the latest business plan period and the previous business plan period for the number of persons in each category in the same local government by means of state change comparison means 17 Graph 21 (For example, “For individual local governments, by age group & gender combination, history change data of nursing care degree distribution”, “For individual local governments, by age group & gender combination, disability History change material for independence distribution ”,“ History change material for individual municipalities / by age group & gender / dementia independence distribution history ”,“ History change materials for individual municipalities / by age group & gender combination, ” "And" history change data for individual municipalities, age group & gender combination, economic power history "etc.) can be output. The above summary is shown in the E column of FIG.

  Next, a case will be described in which this business analysis system is also used for overall analysis, education, and guidance of business planning work managed and managed by all local governments (all insurers) conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  As described above, as a business plan operation in each local government, based on the results of the above-mentioned grasp of the actual situation, how to develop each service by considering the nursing care insurance service as a service infrastructure for the entire local government and each living area Make a specific plan for how much you want to do (service provision and business costs, etc.). At that time, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's competent department quantitatively grasps the operational management status, trends, and progress of these local governments' business plan operations, and then improves understanding and optimization (leveling) of business plans. It is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to all local governments.

  When these are applied to this business analysis system, the service implementation items correspond to service major categories (home care services, preventive services, facility services, etc.), and the business implementation result items include the service types for each service major category described above. As the numerical value representing the result, the business progress rate as the ratio of the actual value of the service cost or the actual value of the benefit cost to the business plan value is used.

  For each of these major service categories, the same data structure as in FIGS. 6 and 10, and the business progress rate as a ratio of the number of times for each service type or the benefit plan to the business plan value, and the ideal progress in the business plan The deviation from the rate (100%) is calculated by the chi-square calculation means 12 and the chi-square test means 13.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each service major classification, the ideal progress status and the municipality to be analyzed are plotted on the vertical axis, and “visit nursing care”, “visit bathing nursing care”, “visit nursing care” are plotted on the horizontal axis. Service type items such as “,” and so on, and the ideal progress rate (100%) and the number of times for each service type or the actual value of the benefit cost of each local government and the business as a ratio to their business plan Data with progress rates arranged on a matrix is used. And from this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each local government with respect to the ideal progress rate.

  The chi-square value for each municipality calculated in this way is determined by the chi-square test means 13 based on the preset significance level and the degree of freedom determined from the number of service types, and whether or not there is a deviation from the ideal progress rate. The degree is verified for each municipality. Implementation result distribution table similar to FIGS. 6 (a), 6 (b) and 10 (a), (b) (named as “Example of business plan progress rate distribution table by major service category / local government / service type”) ) Can be obtained.

  In addition, as described above, the deviation item specifying means 15 displays a deviation item list 19 that displays a list of deviation items (service types, etc. whose progress has been delayed) for each local government. A comparison graph 20 (named “for individual local governments”), which compares the progress rate for each service type with the ideal progress rate (business plan value) by the item comparison means 16.・ Compared with major service categories and business plan values ”, or the status change comparison means 17 compared the progress rate by service type before and after implementation of business plan optimization measures in the same local government. Effect Analysis Contrast Graph 21 (As an example, named “Individual Local Governments, Service Classification, Service Type Frequency / Cost History Change Material” That) can output a. The above summary is shown in row F of FIG.

  Next, a case will be described in which this business analysis system is used for overall analysis, education and guidance of cost-effectiveness analysis business operated and managed by all local governments (all insurers) conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  As described above, each local government tracks the target who was “necessary to support” at a certain point in time for 12 months or 24 months, defines the status of the change over time as “deterioration rate”, and is used during that time. The “cost” of the entire service is calculated from the long-term care benefit performance data (receipt data), and the ratio is calculated as cost effectiveness (deterioration rate / cost). At that time, the department in charge of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (hereinafter referred to as the “Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare”) quantitatively grasps the operational management status and trends for the cost-benefit analysis work of all local governments, It is necessary to provide accurate and effective education and guidance to all local governments in order to improve understanding and optimization (leveling, etc.) of effect analysis.

  When these are applied to this work analysis system, the work execution target item corresponds to the combination of age group and gender, etc., and the work execution result item corresponds to the cost-effectiveness analysis item for each type of care required, and represents the result. As numerical values, the deterioration rate and cost-effectiveness (= deterioration rate / cumulative benefit cost) in the predetermined evaluation period for each category requiring care at the start of evaluation are used. In the following, it is assumed that each content corresponds to each “/” delimiter.

  For each combination of age group and gender, with the same data structure as in FIGS. 6 and 10, each local government belongs to the national average / affiliated prefecture average / local population group average / same aging rate class The deviation from the average of the local government group or the average of the model local government (model insurer) group (model average) is calculated by the chi-square calculating means 12 and the chi-square test means 13. Model local governments are selected from local government staff who are well versed in care management work and have thorough instruction and training for the care manager organizations (home care support offices and regional comprehensive support centers) and care managers under their jurisdiction. And register.

  That is, as in FIG. 6 and FIG. 10, for each combination of age group and gender, the national average / affiliated prefecture average / local government group average belonging to the same population class / local government group average belonging to the same aging rate class, Or, the average of the model local government (model insurer) group (model average) and the local government to be analyzed are plotted on the vertical axis, and “All categories”, “Preventive benefits”, “Care benefits”, “Support required 1, 2 ”,“ Needs for Long-Term Care 1-5 ”, etc. are arranged, and the above-mentioned averages and local governments' deterioration rate and cost-effectiveness (= deterioration) in the predetermined evaluation period for each long-term care category at the start of evaluation (Rate / cumulative benefit cost) is used on the matrix. And from this data, the chi-square calculating means 12 calculates the chi-square value of each local government for the various averages.

  The chi-square value for each municipality calculated in this way is determined by the chi-square test means 13 based on the preset significance level and the degree of freedom determined from the number of nursing care categories, and whether or not there are deviations from the above various averages. The level of each is verified for each municipality. 6 (a) (b) and FIG. 10 (a) (b), an implementation result distribution table (for example, when the numerical value representing the implementation result is a deterioration rate, “by age group & gender combination. Named “Deterioration rate distribution table by nursing care category at the start of evaluation by local government” and when the numerical value representing the implementation result is cost-effective, “By age group & gender combination, by local government, at the start of evaluation Named “Cost-effectiveness distribution table by type of long-term care”).

  In addition, as described above, the deviation item specifying unit 15 displays a deviation item list 19 that displays a list of deviation items for each municipality (classification of care required for each combination of age group and gender, for example). If the numerical value to be expressed is a deterioration rate, it will be named “Local Government / Miscellaneous Age Class & Gender & Disparate Care Required Category [Deterioration Rate]”, and if the numerical value representing the implementation result is cost-effective, "Locality / deviation age class & gender & deviation nursing care category list [cost-effectiveness]" or comparison of the above averages by means of item comparison means 16 Graph 20 (As a name example, when the numerical value indicating the implementation result is a deterioration rate, it is named “Deterioration rate comparison data for individual local governments, various age groups, genders, and long-term care categories”. The number representing the result is In the case of use-effectiveness, it is named “Cost-effectiveness comparison data for individual municipalities / model municipalities by age group & gender / nursing care category”), or the same municipality by means of state change comparison means 17 Effect analysis comparison graph 21 that compares numerical values by nursing care category before and after implementation of optimization measures in Japan (As an example, if the numerical value representing the implementation result is a deterioration rate, “For individual local governments, age group & gender If the numerical value representing the implementation results is cost-effective, the cost-effectiveness for each local government, age group & gender, and nursing-care category Can be output). The above summary is shown in column G of FIG.

  As a result of the above, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, who is the supervisor of management, has been certified and conducted by the local government that is the insurer for long-term care insurance, accredited examination work, care management work, service provision work, actual situation work, business planning work. In addition, each operation and jurisdiction situation such as cost-effectiveness analysis work can be analyzed in detail, and appropriate optimization measures such as education, guidance and advice can be appropriately implemented for all local governments according to the analysis results it can.

  In addition, when the above supervisor was the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, only local governments were targeted as multiple implementers. Various data held by local governments (accredited research institution data and accredited investigator data in the case of accredited surveys, board data in the case of accredited examinations, care management organizations in the case of care management and cost-effectiveness analysis (home care support establishments and Regional Comprehensive Support Center) data, care manager data, service provider data in the case of service provision, and living area data in local governments in the case of actual grasping, business planning, cost-effectiveness analysis, etc.) Therefore, the analysis materials described in FIGS. 13 to 16 in the case where the local government is a supervisory supervisor can be provided even at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare level.

  Furthermore, the explanation was limited to the field of long-term care insurance, but in other fields (medical insurance, health examination, welfare, private insurance, education, agriculture, environment, various services provided by the government and companies, etc.) As a means for supporting the realization of such optimization (leveling, etc.), all the cases where the implementer or the implementation target of the project implements a common business can be similarly applied.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 11 ... Work execution result data storage means 12 ... Chi-square calculation means 13 ... Chi-square test means 14 ... Chi-square test result storage means 15 ... Deviation item specification means 16 ... Item comparison means 17 ... State Change contrast means

Claims (19)

For a common task performed by a plurality of implementers, for each of a plurality of implementation target items in this task, a plurality of implementation result items each representing the implementation result as a numerical value are tabulated for each implementer and determined in advance. A business analysis system that analyzes the results of the implementation by comparing with a group of modelers,
Work execution result data storage means for holding the work execution result data in which numerical values of each execution result item for each execution target item of the work carried out in the past are tabulated according to the model performer group and individual performers;
Using the numerical value for each execution result item for each execution target item of the model performer group and the individual implementer held in the work execution result data storage means, the model implementer group and the individual implementer Chi-square calculation means for obtaining a chi-square value representing the degree of deviation of numerical values for each individual implementer,
Chi-square test means for testing the chi-square value obtained by the chi-square calculation means using a preset significance level, and obtaining the degree of deviation from the model performer group for each individual implementer,
Business analysis system characterized by having   Using the chi-square value data for each implementation target item of each performer tested by the chi-square test means, a deviation item that identifies the implementation target item whose chi-square value exceeds a preset threshold of significance level 2. The business analysis system according to claim 1, further comprising a specifying unit.   A plurality of significance levels having different values are set in the chi-square test means, and it is tested whether the chi-square value to be tested falls within one of a plurality of threshold ranges determined by the plurality of significance levels. 2. The business analysis system according to claim 1, wherein a degree of deviation is obtained according to a result.   Using the chi-square value data for each execution target item of each performer tested by the chi-square test means, the chi-square value falls within any of a plurality of threshold ranges determined by a plurality of significance levels set in advance. 4. The business analysis system according to claim 3, further comprising deviation item specifying means for specifying each of the implementation target items.   The ratio of each implementation result item in the implementation target item of the individual implementer to the total value of all implementation result items is compared with the ratio of the corresponding implementation result item of the model implementer group to the total value of all implementation items. The business analysis system according to claim 1, further comprising item comparison means.   A state in which the numerical value of each execution result item in the execution target item of the individual implementer specified by the deviation item specifying means is compared with the numerical value of the same execution result item executed by the same individual implementer before a predetermined period The business analysis system according to claim 2, further comprising a change contrast unit.   The plurality of implementers are any of the local governments, accredited research organizations, and accredited surveyors who operate and manage accredited surveys, the common work is accredited surveys, and the multiple implementation target items are accredited survey items. The business analysis system according to any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein a plurality of execution result items each representing an execution result as a numerical value are options indicating an authorized survey result.   The multiple implementers are local governments or consortiums that operate and manage accreditation examinations, the common work is accreditation examinations, and the plurality of implementation target items are the categories of primary judgment results that are subject to examination, all categories, not applicable, Number of minor change from primary judgment result to secondary judgment result in multiple implementation result items that are either support 1, 2 or need nursing care 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 The business analysis system according to any one of claims 1 to 6, characterized in that: the number of cases without change and the number of severe changes.   The plurality of implementers are any of the local governments, care management organizations (home care support providers, regional comprehensive support centers) and care managers who manage and manage care management. The item is a state image consisting of a combination of mental and physical conditions, nursing power, and economic power, and multiple implementation result items are service item items of the service type or specific service type, and the numerical value representing the implementation result is per person The business analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the business analysis system has an average benefit cost distribution.   A state in which the plurality of implementers are local governments or service providers operating and managing the service provision, the common work is the service provision, and the plurality of implementation target items are a combination of a mental and physical state, a nursing ability, and an economic ability 7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of execution result items are service item items of a specific service type, and the numerical value indicating the execution result is an average per capita benefit distribution. The business analysis system described in Crab.   The local government or the living area within the local government where the plurality of implementers operate and manage the actual situation grasp, the common work is the actual situation grasp, and the plurality of implementation target items are either age group and gender, or a combination thereof The multiple implementation result items are any of the categories requiring care, disability independence, dementia independence, care ability, or economic ability, and the numerical values representing the implementation results are subject to the above categories. The business analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the business analysis system is a number of persons.   The plurality of implementers is a local government or a living area within the local government where the business plan is implemented, the common work is the business plan, and the plurality of implementation target items is one of a home care service, a preventive service, or a facility service. The number of service results for each service category is a service type, and the numerical value representing the result is the number of times for each service type or the business plan progress rate as a ratio to the planned value of benefit costs The business analysis system according to any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein the system is a business analysis system.   The plurality of implementers are any one of a local government, a care management organization (home care support business operator, regional comprehensive support center), and a care manager that perform cost-effectiveness analysis, and a common task is cost-effectiveness analysis, Multiple implementation target items are either age group and gender, or a combination of these, and multiple implementation result items are cost-effectiveness analysis items for each type of nursing care required. The business analysis system according to any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein the business analysis system is a cost-effectiveness as a rate of deterioration for each category requiring care or a ratio of the rate of deterioration to the accumulated benefit costs. For a common task performed by a plurality of implementers, for each of a plurality of implementation target items in this task, a plurality of implementation result items each representing the implementation result as a numerical value are tabulated for each implementer and determined in advance. It is a business analysis program that allows a computer to realize the function of analyzing the execution result by comparing with the model implementer group,
The numerical value of each execution result item of the work carried out in the past is aggregated for each model implementer group and individual implementer, and the data stored in the work execution result data storage means is used to individually A numerical value for each execution result item for each execution target item with the practitioner is given to the chi-square calculation means, and a chi-square value representing the degree of deviation of the numerical value between the model practitioner group and the individual practitioner is individually set. Ask each practitioner,
The chi-square value obtained by the work execution result data storage means is given to the chi-square test means, and the degree of deviation from the model performer group for each individual performer by a test based on a preset significance level. Ask for each
A business analysis program characterized by this.   Using the chi-square value data for each implementation target item of each performer tested by the chi-square test unit, the implementation target item whose chi-square value exceeds a preset threshold of significance level is specified as an item identification unit. The business analysis program according to claim 14, characterized by:   The chi-square test means sets a plurality of significance levels having different values, and tests whether the chi-square value to be tested falls within one of a plurality of threshold ranges determined by the plurality of significance levels. The business analysis program according to claim 14, which has a function of obtaining a degree of deviation according to the situation.   Using the chi-square value data for each execution target item of each performer tested by the chi-square test means, the chi-square value falls within any of a plurality of threshold ranges determined by a plurality of significance levels set in advance. The business analysis program according to claim 16, wherein the execution target item is specified by a deviation item specifying unit.   The ratio of each execution result item in the execution target item of the individual implementer to the total value of all the execution result items is summed up of all the execution result items of the corresponding execution result items of the model implementer group by the item comparison means. The business analysis program according to claim 14, wherein the business analysis program is compared with a ratio to a value.   The numerical value of each execution result item in the execution target item of the individual practitioner specified by the deviation item specifying means is the numerical value of the same execution result item executed by the state change comparison means before the same individual practitioner for a predetermined period. The business analysis program according to claim 15 or 17, characterized in that the business analysis program is compared with the business analysis program.

Images