西部中医药
西部中醫藥
서부중의약
GANSU JOURNAL OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE
2015年
1期
123-124,125
,共3页
普外科%护理干预%护理质量
普外科%護理榦預%護理質量
보외과%호리간예%호리질량
general surgery department%nursing intervention%nursing quality
目的:探讨护理干预措施对普通外科手术患者疗效及康复的影响。方法:将普通外科手术患者196例随机分为护理干预组和常规护理组。常规护理组97例患者实施常规护理,护理干预组99在常规护理的基础上实施护理干预(包括心理干预、疼痛干预等),比较分析2组患者的疼痛评分、汉密尔顿焦虑量表评分以及患者的依从性、满意度。结果:疼痛评分:常规护理组术后疼痛39例(轻微疼痛14例,疼痛19例,重度疼痛6例),护理干预组术后疼痛17例(轻微疼痛9例,疼痛5例,重度疼痛3例),2组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);汉密尔顿焦虑量表评分:护理治疗前2组患者评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);护理治疗后,2组患者的评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);护理干预组患者依从性和满意度均优于常规护理组。结论:在普外科手术患者治疗过程中,心理、疼痛等方面的干预措施可有效缓解患者的紧张焦虑情绪,减轻患者术后疼痛,有利于患者对护理工作的满意度及整体护理质量的提高。
目的:探討護理榦預措施對普通外科手術患者療效及康複的影響。方法:將普通外科手術患者196例隨機分為護理榦預組和常規護理組。常規護理組97例患者實施常規護理,護理榦預組99在常規護理的基礎上實施護理榦預(包括心理榦預、疼痛榦預等),比較分析2組患者的疼痛評分、漢密爾頓焦慮量錶評分以及患者的依從性、滿意度。結果:疼痛評分:常規護理組術後疼痛39例(輕微疼痛14例,疼痛19例,重度疼痛6例),護理榦預組術後疼痛17例(輕微疼痛9例,疼痛5例,重度疼痛3例),2組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05);漢密爾頓焦慮量錶評分:護理治療前2組患者評分比較差異無統計學意義(P>0.05);護理治療後,2組患者的評分比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05);護理榦預組患者依從性和滿意度均優于常規護理組。結論:在普外科手術患者治療過程中,心理、疼痛等方麵的榦預措施可有效緩解患者的緊張焦慮情緒,減輕患者術後疼痛,有利于患者對護理工作的滿意度及整體護理質量的提高。
목적:탐토호리간예조시대보통외과수술환자료효급강복적영향。방법:장보통외과수술환자196례수궤분위호리간예조화상규호리조。상규호리조97례환자실시상규호리,호리간예조99재상규호리적기출상실시호리간예(포괄심리간예、동통간예등),비교분석2조환자적동통평분、한밀이돈초필량표평분이급환자적의종성、만의도。결과:동통평분:상규호리조술후동통39례(경미동통14례,동통19례,중도동통6례),호리간예조술후동통17례(경미동통9례,동통5례,중도동통3례),2조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05);한밀이돈초필량표평분:호리치료전2조환자평분비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05);호리치료후,2조환자적평분비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05);호리간예조환자의종성화만의도균우우상규호리조。결론:재보외과수술환자치료과정중,심리、동통등방면적간예조시가유효완해환자적긴장초필정서,감경환자술후동통,유리우환자대호리공작적만의도급정체호리질량적제고。
Objective: To study the influence of nursing intervention over patients' curative effect and rehabilitation. Methods: All 196 patients in the general surgery department were randomized into the nursing intervention group and the conventional nursing control group. The control group with 97 cases were nursed by conventional method, and the intervention group were added psychological and pain intervention besides conventional intervention. The pain scores, anxiety scale by Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) as well as patients' compliance and satisfaction were compared between two groups. Results: Pain scores: the cases of pain after surgery in the conventional group were 39 (including 14 cases of mild pain, 19 cases of pain and 6 cases of severe pain); while in the control group the cases were only 17 (including 9 mild pain, 5 pain and 3 severe pai); the comparison of the two groups showed statistical meaning (P<0.05); HAMA scores: before nursing intervention the difference of two groups had no statistical meaning (P>0.05); after that there was statistical meaning in the comparison of the two groups (P<0.05). Patients' compliance and satisfaction in the intervention group were superior to the control group. Conclu-sion: In the process of treating patients in the general surgery department, the psychological and painful intervention can effectively relieve the patients' nervous and anxious mood to decrease the pain causing by surgery and benefit in increasing the degree of patients' satisfaction for nursing work and nursing quality.