中国继续医学教育
中國繼續醫學教育
중국계속의학교육
CHINA CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION
2014年
8期
4-6
,共3页
急救%护理%培训
急救%護理%培訓
급구%호리%배훈
First aid%Nursing%Training
目的：比较急救情景模拟训练与急救技能单项训练在临床护士急救配合技能培训中…的应用效果。方法由工作满8年的护师或主管护师40名（小组长）与工作满2～7年的护士或护师80名组成40个培训小组，随机分成单项培训组和情景模拟培训组（各含20个培训小组），对单项培训组采用各项急救技能单项培训的模式进行培训，对情景模拟培训组采用模拟急救配合情景的模式进行培训，培训前、后分别按同一评分标准对40个小组成员各进行一次急救配合技能考核，比较两种不同培训模式的培训效果。结果单项培训组与情景模拟培训组培训前考核成绩的差异无统计学意义（t=0.08，P=0.94），培训后两组考核成绩较培训前均有显著提高（t=19.96， P ＜0.01；t=20.02，P ＜0.01），但培训后情景模拟培训组考核成绩明…显高于单项培训组的考核成绩（t=8.30，P ＜0.01）。结论急救情景模拟训练的培训效果优于急救技能单项训练。
目的：比較急救情景模擬訓練與急救技能單項訓練在臨床護士急救配閤技能培訓中…的應用效果。方法由工作滿8年的護師或主管護師40名（小組長）與工作滿2～7年的護士或護師80名組成40箇培訓小組，隨機分成單項培訓組和情景模擬培訓組（各含20箇培訓小組），對單項培訓組採用各項急救技能單項培訓的模式進行培訓，對情景模擬培訓組採用模擬急救配閤情景的模式進行培訓，培訓前、後分彆按同一評分標準對40箇小組成員各進行一次急救配閤技能攷覈，比較兩種不同培訓模式的培訓效果。結果單項培訓組與情景模擬培訓組培訓前攷覈成績的差異無統計學意義（t=0.08，P=0.94），培訓後兩組攷覈成績較培訓前均有顯著提高（t=19.96， P ＜0.01；t=20.02，P ＜0.01），但培訓後情景模擬培訓組攷覈成績明…顯高于單項培訓組的攷覈成績（t=8.30，P ＜0.01）。結論急救情景模擬訓練的培訓效果優于急救技能單項訓練。
목적：비교급구정경모의훈련여급구기능단항훈련재림상호사급구배합기능배훈중…적응용효과。방법유공작만8년적호사혹주관호사40명（소조장）여공작만2～7년적호사혹호사80명조성40개배훈소조，수궤분성단항배훈조화정경모의배훈조（각함20개배훈소조），대단항배훈조채용각항급구기능단항배훈적모식진행배훈，대정경모의배훈조채용모의급구배합정경적모식진행배훈，배훈전、후분별안동일평분표준대40개소조성원각진행일차급구배합기능고핵，비교량충불동배훈모식적배훈효과。결과단항배훈조여정경모의배훈조배훈전고핵성적적차이무통계학의의（t=0.08，P=0.94），배훈후량조고핵성적교배훈전균유현저제고（t=19.96， P ＜0.01；t=20.02，P ＜0.01），단배훈후정경모의배훈조고핵성적명…현고우단항배훈조적고핵성적（t=8.30，P ＜0.01）。결론급구정경모의훈련적배훈효과우우급구기능단항훈련。
Objective To compare the effects of the emergency scenario simulation training and single emergency skill training in clinical nurse’s emergency co-operation. Methods Randomly picked out 40 nurses from nurse-in-charge or primary nurses who had worked for more than 8 years (including 8 years) as the leaders of emergency cooperation training teams, and 80 nurses who had worked for 2 to 7 years, to constitute 40 training teams. Then the 40 teams were randomized into single training group and scenario simulation training group (each contains 20 training teams). Single training group adopted single training mode to train, while scenario simulation training group adopted the emergency scenario simulation training mode. According to a same evaluation standard, emergency co-operation skills of all training members will be examined, and the scores will be recorded before training. According to the same evaluation standard, their emergency co-operation skills will be examined again after training. Finally the comparison of effects of these two different training modes will be provided. Results There was no significant difference of the scores between single training group and scenario simulation training group before training (t=0.08, P=0.94), while all significantly improved after training (t=19.96, P<0.01, t=20.02, P<0.01). But the scenario simulation training group scored significantly higher than single training group after training (t=8.30, P<0.01). Conclusion Emergency scenario simulation training may do better than single training..
