摘要目的:对我国医院传染病防控政策文本进行量化分析，为优化医院传染病防控政策制定，提升传染病公共卫生风险治理能力提供参考。方法:以"医院""传染病""公共卫生""风险管理"等为关键词，在国务院、国家卫生健康委员会官方网站检索2017年10月至2023年12月印发的医院传染病防控相关政策文件。基于传染病公共卫生风险治理角度，从政策工具(供给型、需求型、环境型)、政策客体(内部客体包括医院、医务工作者，外部客体包括基层医疗卫生机构、疾病预防控制机构和卫生健康行政部门)和风险管理生命周期(风险识别、风险评估、风险控制、风险管理效果评价)3个维度，运用内容分析法对政策文本进行量化分析。结果:共纳入98份医院传染病防控相关政策，总计获得539条编码，其中供给型、需求型和环境型政策工具分别有134、179和226条，针对医院、医务工作者、基层医疗卫生机构、疾病预防控制机构和卫生健康行政部门的分别有239、25、24、26和225条，在风险识别、风险评估、风险控制和风险管理效果评价阶段分别有117、34、326和62条。三维交叉分析发现，风险识别阶段多通过环境型政策工具强化医院(29/117)和卫生健康行政部门的责任(23/117);风险评估阶段采用的主要是针对卫生健康行政部门的需求型政策工具(6/34);风险控制阶段利用3类政策工具对各政策客体均提出了要求；风险管理效果评价阶段主要是以环境型政策工具规范卫生健康行政部门的主体责任(33/62)，在基层医疗卫生机构、医务工作者和疾病预防控制机构中均无体现。结论:我国的医院传染病防控政策中，各类政策工具及风险管理各阶段的政策设计运用均存在差异，政策客体的责任分工尚需优化。政策制定者应合理运用政策工具，从公共卫生治理的角度强化对传染病风险的全生命周期管理和政策覆盖，明确各类政策客体的责任分工，提高医院的传染病公共卫生风险治理能力。

abstractsObjective:To quantitatively analyze the hospital infectious disease prevention and control policy texts in China, providing reference for optimizing the formulation of hospital infectious disease prevention and control policies and enhancing the public health risk management capabilities of infectious diseases.Methods:With the " hospital" " epidemic" " public health" " risk management" as keywords, relevant policy documents issued from October 2017 to December 2023 were searched on the official websites of the State Council and the National Health Commission. Based on the perspective of public health risk governance for infectious diseases, the content analysis method was used to quantitatively analyze policy texts from three dimensions: policy tools (supply oriented, demand oriented, and environmental oriented), policy objects (hospitals and medical staff as internal objects, grassroots medical and health institutions, disease prevention and control institutions, and health administrative authorities as external objects), and risk management lifecycle (risk identification, risk assessment, risk control, and risk management effectiveness evaluation).Results:A total of 98 hospital infectious disease prevention and control policies were included, with a total of 539 codes obtained. Among them, there were 134, 179, and 226 policy items for supply, demand, and environment oriented, respectively. There were 239, 25, 24, 26, and 225 policy items for hospitals, medical staffs, grassroots medical and health institutions, disease prevention and control institutions, and health administrative authorities, respectively. In the stages of risk identification, risk assessment, risk control, and risk management effectiveness evaluation, there were 117, 34, 326, and 62 policy items, respectively. Three dimensional cross analysis revealed that in the risk identification stage, environmental policy tools were often used to strengthen the responsibilities of hospitals (29/117) and health administrative authorities (23/117); The main policy tools used in the risk assessment stage were demand based tools for the health administrative authorities (6/34); During the risk control stage, three types of policy tools were used to propose requirements for each policy object; The evaluation stage of risk management effectiveness mainly used environmental policy tools to regulate the main responsibility of health administrative authorities (33/62), which was not reflected in grassroots medical and health institutions, medical staffs, and disease prevention and control institutions.Conclusions:In China′s hospital infectious disease prevention and control policies, there were differences in the design and application of various policy tools and risk management policies at different stages, and the division of responsibility for policy objects still needed to be optimized. Policy makers should make reasonable use of policy tools, strengthen the full lifecycle management and policy coverage of infectious disease risks from the perspective of public health governance, clarify the division of responsibilities among various policy objects, and improve the hospital′s ability to manage infectious disease public health risks.