中华现代护理杂志
中華現代護理雜誌
중화현대호리잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MODERN NURSING
2010年
24期
2853-2856
,共4页
社区服务人员%院前急救%培训
社區服務人員%院前急救%培訓
사구복무인원%원전급구%배훈
Community service providers%Prehospital aid%Training
目的 通过确定影响社区服务人员院前急救培训效果的因素,探讨普及院前急救培训的最佳方式.方法 采用方便抽样的方法选取了上海市老西门、外滩两个社区的91名社区服务人员,随机将其分配到三组培训模式中进行院前急救培训.并且运用红十字会的理论和技能评估工具在培训前、培训后即刻、培训后1个月、培训后3个月对三组的培训结果进行评估.结果 三组社区服务人员在培训前的一般情况差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);受训前的知识和技能评估显示培训前的成绩没有统计学差异;以培训后即刻、培训后1个月、培训后3个月的总平均分为因变量做多元线性回归分析,结果显示管理、文化程度、第二组的培训方式、第三组的培训方式、培训后即刻的总平均分、培训后1个月的总平均分分别和以上因变量有相关性;受训后不同组别在不同时间点的总平均分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 不同文化程度的社区服务人员急救培训效果不同;前期培训效果对后期培训效果有影响;可利用管理人员的影响力及最佳的培训方式,提高院前急救培训效果.
目的 通過確定影響社區服務人員院前急救培訓效果的因素,探討普及院前急救培訓的最佳方式.方法 採用方便抽樣的方法選取瞭上海市老西門、外灘兩箇社區的91名社區服務人員,隨機將其分配到三組培訓模式中進行院前急救培訓.併且運用紅十字會的理論和技能評估工具在培訓前、培訓後即刻、培訓後1箇月、培訓後3箇月對三組的培訓結果進行評估.結果 三組社區服務人員在培訓前的一般情況差異無統計學意義(P>0.05);受訓前的知識和技能評估顯示培訓前的成績沒有統計學差異;以培訓後即刻、培訓後1箇月、培訓後3箇月的總平均分為因變量做多元線性迴歸分析,結果顯示管理、文化程度、第二組的培訓方式、第三組的培訓方式、培訓後即刻的總平均分、培訓後1箇月的總平均分分彆和以上因變量有相關性;受訓後不同組彆在不同時間點的總平均分比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05).結論 不同文化程度的社區服務人員急救培訓效果不同;前期培訓效果對後期培訓效果有影響;可利用管理人員的影響力及最佳的培訓方式,提高院前急救培訓效果.
목적 통과학정영향사구복무인원원전급구배훈효과적인소,탐토보급원전급구배훈적최가방식.방법 채용방편추양적방법선취료상해시로서문、외탄량개사구적91명사구복무인원,수궤장기분배도삼조배훈모식중진행원전급구배훈.병차운용홍십자회적이론화기능평고공구재배훈전、배훈후즉각、배훈후1개월、배훈후3개월대삼조적배훈결과진행평고.결과 삼조사구복무인원재배훈전적일반정황차이무통계학의의(P>0.05);수훈전적지식화기능평고현시배훈전적성적몰유통계학차이;이배훈후즉각、배훈후1개월、배훈후3개월적총평균분위인변량주다원선성회귀분석,결과현시관리、문화정도、제이조적배훈방식、제삼조적배훈방식、배훈후즉각적총평균분、배훈후1개월적총평균분분별화이상인변량유상관성;수훈후불동조별재불동시간점적총평균분비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).결론 불동문화정도적사구복무인원급구배훈효과불동;전기배훈효과대후기배훈효과유영향;가이용관리인원적영향력급최가적배훈방식,제고원전급구배훈효과.
Objective To explore factors affecting prehospital aid training program of community service providers and discuss optimal method of popularize prehospital aid training. Methods 91 community service providers from two communities of Shanghai were recruited by convenient sampling and randomly divided into three groups of different prehospital aid training models. Knowledge and skills assessment scale of the Red Cross was used to evaluate the training effect at the time of pre-training, post-training, 1 month and 3 month after training. Results There was no statistically significant difference of general characteristics, knowledge and skills among the three groups (P > 0. 05). With average scores of post-training, 1 month and 3 month after training as dependent variables, multiple linear regression demonstrated that management, education background, training model of group B and C, average scores of post-training and 1 month after training were correlated with the dependent variables, respectively. Average scores of the four time point were statistically different among the latter three groups. Conclusions Effect of prehospital aid training varies among community service providers of different education background. Early stage training has influence on that of later stage. Managers and optimal training models can promote the effect of prehospital aid training.
