Abstract: Background　Among the regions in China，Shanghai has took the lead in proposing the establishment of fever alertness clinics in community health centers. As a component of the epidemic control and prevention system，fever alertness clinics assume the role of containing an epidemic at the primary level. The Public Health Preparedness Clinic（PHPC） is a branch of Singapore's sound public health system. Objective　To compare fever alertness clinics of Shanghai and Singapore's PHPCs，then put forward suggestions to improve the construction of Shanghai's fever alertness clinics. Methods　This study was carried out from December 2020 to April 2021. For studying Shanghai's fever alertness clinics，policy documents analysis，literature review and field survey were used. Besides，interviews were also used，which were conducted in two rounds，separately for managers and healthcare workers who were selected from a random sample of three fever alertness clinics（one in the central urban area，one in the outer suburb and one in the urban fringe） of Shanghai. Guided by different outlines，the interviews for the two groups were aimed to collect their perspectives of the organizational structure，setting，operation，and management of fever alertness clinics. For studying Singapore's PHPCs and relevant practice，literature review was used. Results　The number and density of PHPC in Singapore are higher than those in Shanghai fever alertness clinic. Shanghai has higher standards for setting up fever alertness clinic，but PHPCs in Singapore has a higher entry threshold. Shanghai fever alertness clinic have more specific treatment procedures and standardization. Singapore's PHPC system is more prominent in terms of subsidies for epidemic prevention and protection of medical staff. Conclusion　The construction of Singapore's PHPCs needs longer preparation time，and the government is responsible for setting standards，admittance approval，planning and layout using the top-down approach，so the development of PHPCs shows higher homogeneity and meticulousness. In contrast，the construction of fever alertness clinics in Shanghai started late，showing higher personalized and localized characteristics.

Key words: Sentinel surveillance, Fever clinic, Community health services, COVID-19, Singapore, Shanghai

摘要： 背景　上海市在我国率先提出建设社区卫生服务中心发热哨点诊室，发热哨点诊室在防疫体系中承担着“网底”功能。公共卫生防范诊所（PHPC）是新加坡成熟的公共卫生体系中的一个分支系统。目的　对比上海市发热哨点诊室与新加坡PHPC模式，探究双方在基层疫情防控方面的差异，并对完善上海市发热哨点诊室建设提出建议。方法　于2020年12月至2021年4月，选取上海市中心城区、远郊、城郊结合区各一家社区卫生服务中心发热哨点诊室作为样本机构，通过对发热哨点诊室管理人员和医务人员开展两轮访谈，以及对样本机构开展现场调研，并辅以文献检索，获取上海市发热哨点诊室模式及应用资料。通过检索新加坡卫生部官网和数据库文献，获得新加坡PHPC模式及其应用资料。结果　新加坡PHPC模式诊所数量、密度高于上海市发热哨点诊室；上海市发热哨点诊室的设置标准要求高，但新加坡PHPC的准入“门槛”更高；上海市发热哨点诊室在就诊流程方面更具个性化；新加坡PHPC模式对防疫补贴、医护人员保障方面较为突出。结论　新加坡PHPC模式具有更长的筹建时间，由政府自上而下制定标准、准入批准、统筹布局，呈现出更高的同质性与缜密性，上海市发热哨点的建设起步较晚，呈现出更高的个性化与本土化特征。

关键词: 哨点监测, 发热诊室, 社区卫生服务, 新型冠状病毒肺炎, 新加坡, 上海