转自：中国市场监管报 该标准是我国民族医药领域首部疾病分类国家标准，其出台标志着藏医药标准化建设迈出关键一步，对 藏医医疗服务的规范化、科学化发展具有重要意义。具体作用表现在以下四个方面：一是统一疾病名称 体系，有效解决藏医药存在的"一病多名、同病异名"等问题，为临床诊断、学术交流和医疗管理提供统 一依据；二是突出藏医临床特色，系统梳理和体现藏医优势病种，有助于发挥藏医药在特定疾病防治中 的独特作用；三是支撑医疗质量管控，为藏医医疗服务质量控制、效果评价与管理监督提供科学的监测 指标，助力藏医服务水平持续提升；四是促进数据平台建设，为构建藏医药大数据平台奠定基础，同时 也可为医保结算、卫生统计等信息化工作提供可靠数据支撑。 本报讯 近日，市场监管总局（国家标准委）批准发布《藏医疾病分类与代码》（GB/T 46946—2025） 推荐性国家标准。该标准由国家中医药管理局组织起草，将自4月1日起正式实施。 □叶 昀 （来源：中国市场监管报） 《藏医疾病分类与代码》遵从藏医学术理论本体、满足藏医临床诊断需求，将藏医疾病分为三大基因病 等15大类和隆病等97节细类，并编制藏医疾病名术语与分类代码表，规定了3000多种 ...

Core Insights - The development environment for Tibetan medicine in Qinghai Province is gradually improving, with a standardized framework being established to support its growth [1] - A total of 86 local standards related to Tibetan medicine have been formulated and published, along with 28 group and industry standards, facilitating the innovation and inheritance of Tibetan medicine [1] Standardization Progress - The province has filled gaps in Tibetan medical nursing and medical record writing standards, providing technical support for the production, quality control, and safety of Tibetan medicine [2] - A national classification standard for Tibetan medicine has been developed, categorizing 3,036 Tibetan medical disease names, which will be the first of its kind in the country [2] Results Transformation - Standardized diagnosis and treatment are being implemented across 19 national key specialties and 33 provincial and county-level collaborative centers, with 531 Tibetan and Mongolian medical preparations and 564 ethnic medical service projects included in medical insurance [2] - A unified service standard is being promoted through grassroots Tibetan medicine clinics [2] Cross-Regional Collaboration - The province is actively participating in a standardization collaboration mechanism with five other provinces, working together on the development of standards such as the "Basic Terms and Terminology of Tibetan Medicine" [2] - This collaboration aims to share standard results and technical documents, and jointly evaluate the effectiveness of standard implementation, fostering a model of "co-construction of standards, shared results, and mutual learning" [2]