目的 了解医疗机构青年医务人员对医学创新转化课程的需求,优化相关课程设置。方法 对北京协和医院参与“协和医创课”的63名学员进行问卷调查,描述参与学习的人群构成、获取创新培训及资源对接的需求、创新培训课程的评价。采用卡方检验比较尚无知识产权授权者及已获知识产权授权者在创新需求和课程评价方面的差异。结果 共有55人完成问卷,学员所参与的创新项目以医护器械类[54.5%(30/55)]和数字医疗类[21.8%(12/55)]居多,尚无知识产权授权者占43.6%(24/55)。“协和医创课”中对学员最有帮助的课程为“北京协和医院创新转化政策”,其次为“临床医生如何主导医学创新”(尚无知识产权授权者)或“医疗器械成果转化全流程布局和管理”(已获知识产权授权者)。已获知识产权授权者对于学习“撰写商业计划、获得投资的方法”的需求更高,尚无知识产权授权者对于学习“申请专利的方法与流程”需求更高,其差异均具有统计学意义[50.0%(12/24)比12.9%(4/31),P=0.001;87.1%(27/31)比45.8%(11/24),P=0.003]。尚无知识产权授权者与已获知识产权授权者在科研团队组建、专利申报服务、转化服务方面的资源对接需求差异具有统计学意义[41.7%(10/24)比12.9%(4/31),P=0.015);29.2%(7/24)比3.2%(1/31),P=0.007;8.3%(2/24)比48.4%(15/31),P=0.001]。结论 医疗机构青年医务人员的医疗创新可考虑从医护器械类和数字医疗类项目转化为抓手。根据有无知识产权授权分类的差异化课程培训设置应在将来的培训中予以重视。

Objective To design a course for young practitioners on medical innovation and technology translation and to evaluate the satisfaction and expectation of trainees. Methods Accompanying with the “Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) Medical Innovation Course”, an intramural training program for young staff in PUMCH, a questionnaire survey was conducted after the course. The characteristics of those trainees, their feedback of the course and demands for further training and resource docking were obtained and analyzed. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the differences between subjects owned intellectual property (IP) and those owned no IP. Results Among the 55 who participated in the survey, most of their innovation projects were about medical devices [54.5%(30/55)] and digital medicine [21.8%(12/55)], 43.6% (24/55) of them owned no intellectual property (IP). In the whole PUMCH Medical Innovation Course, the most helpful lecture was “Interpretation of Policies on Technology Transfer” for all subjects, followed by “How Clinicians Lead Medical Innovation” and “Layout and Management of the Complete Process of Technology Transfer for Medical Instruments” for subjects with and without IP, respectively. For knowledges and skills they demanded most, in which subjects with IP preferred “how to develop business plans (BP) and to access enterprise financings” and subjects without IP, preferred “how to apply for patents”[50.0%(12/24) vs. 12.9%(4/31), P=0.001; 87.1%(27/31) vs. 45.8%(11/24), P=0.003]. As for resource docking, subjects with no IP rights differed significantly from those owned IP in demands for building up research teams, patent filling services and resources of start-up incubators [41.7%(10/24) vs.12.9%(4/31), P=0.015; 29.2%(7/24) vs. 3.2%(1/31), P=0.007; 8.3%(2/24) vs. 48.4%(15/31), P=0.001]. Conclusions The promotion of medical innovation and technology translation should pay attention to innovation projects on medical equipment and digital medicine. Subjects with IP differed from those without in demands for resources and their preferences for the lectures. Designing a similar course in the future should take into accounts these differences between the two subgroups.