论文部分内容阅读
目的通过对肺结核患者调查问卷分析,了解在电子服药系统管理下患者服药影响因素,从而进一步提高对患者服药的督导管理质量。方法本研究通过选取2014年5月在社区卫生健康服务中心(简称“社康”)服过药的肺结核患者进行自制问卷调查。利用Epi Data3.1录入调查问卷,并对肺结核患者的社会人口学特征和问卷答题比例进行描述性分析,特殊问题利用SPSS 13.0软件对构成比进行χ~2检验,以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果一般性问题:患者每次到社康取药路程10 min内的占61.62%(122/198),超过10 min占38.38%(76/198)。患者去社康取药选择的交通工具中,步行占86.36%(171/198),患者到社康后取药所花时间,10 min内的占93.43%(185/198)。患者对到社康取药(含路程)所花时间能接受的占79.8%(158/198)。患者到社康取药时医护人员是否询问病情及药物不良反应,再发药,其中回答每次询问的占52.52%(104/198)。患者到社康取药时,医护人员采取的发药形式,刷卡取药的占97.98%(194/198)。患者对医护人员服务态度满意情况,非常满意及满意的占88.89%(176/198)。特殊问题:患者能否做到每天去社康取药,全程督导与强化期督导两组间差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.359,P>0.05)。在不能坚持每天去社康取药的患者中分析原因,因工作临时变化,来不及取药的占68.89%(31/40)。患者在全程治疗期间有无漏服药,全程督导与强化期督导两组间差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.220,P>0.05)。患者中有过漏服药的,医护人员电话追访情况全程督导与强化期督导两组间差异有统计学意义,其中全程督导漏服药患者无医护人员追访的占20.00%(9/45),超过强化期督导患者所占比例8.89%(4/45)(χ~2=13.734,P<0.05)。结论绝大多数患者能够接受电子服药系统管理下的社康督导取药模式,但社康督导医生管理工作存在不足。
Objective To investigate the influencing factors of patients taking medicine under the administration of electronic medication system by analyzing the questionnaire of patients with pulmonary tuberculosis so as to further improve the quality of supervision and management of patients taking medicine. Methods In this study, we conducted a self-made questionnaire by selecting TB patients who took their medicine at Community Health Service Center (“Social Health”) in May 2014. Epi Data3.1 entry questionnaire, and the socio-demographic characteristics of patients with tuberculosis and the proportion of questionnaires to answer the descriptive analysis of special problems using SPSS 13.0 software on the constituent ratio of 2 test, P <0.05 as the difference statistics Significance of learning. Results General questions: The patients took 61.62% (122/198) of medication within 10 minutes each time they took the medicine and 38.38% (76/198) of them took more than 10 minutes. Among them, 86.36% (171/198) of them walked in public transportation to take medicine, 93.43% (185/198) took 10 minutes after the patients took the medicine. 79.8% (158/198) of the time patients took to take drugs (including distance) to the community involved. When the patients came to the community to take medicine, whether the medical staff asked about the condition and adverse drug reactions and re-issued the medicine, of which 52.52% (104/198) answered each question. Patients taking medicine to the community, the medical staff to take the form of drug delivery, accounting for 97.98% (194/198). Patients satisfied with the attitude of medical staff, very satisfied and satisfied 88.89% (176/198). Special question: Can the patient go to the community to take medicine every day, there is no significant difference between the two groups (χ ~ 2 = 0.359, P> 0.05). In patients who can not insist on taking medicine every day to analyze their causes, 68.89% (31/40) did not have enough time to take medicine because of temporary changes in their work. There was no difference between the two groups during the whole supervision and intensive supervision (χ2 = 0.220, P> 0.05). There was a missed medication in patients, and there was significant difference between the two groups in the whole supervision and intensive supervision of the phone call of medical staff. Among them, 20.00% (9/45) The proportion of patients supervised by supervised enhancement was 8.89% (4/45) (χ ~ 2 = 13.734, P <0.05). Conclusion Most patients are able to accept the supervision and administration mode of social supervision under the control of the electronic drug delivery system. However, management of social supervision and supervisors has inadequate management.