论文部分内容阅读
目的针对急诊手术患者实施手术室优质护理的效果观察。方法选取2014年1月—2015年1月期间收治118例急诊手术患者进行研究,根据随机数字表法将患者分为两组,对照组59例开展常规护理,观察组59例开展优质护理,对比两组患者术前及术后生理、心理指标变化情况,同时比较两组护理缺陷及护理投诉事件发生率,并对两组患者对护理服务的满意程度展开比较。计量资料采用t检验,计数资料采用χ2检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果干预后观察组心率、呼吸频率、舒张压、收缩压分别为(66±7)、(14±2)次/min、(76±5)、(120±7)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 k Pa),对照组分别为(78±9)、(17±3)次/min、(82±6)、(126±6)mm Hg,术后观察组各指标均明显优于对照组,对比差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。手术后观察组患者抑郁、焦虑、敌对、恐怖、躯体化、偏执、强迫症状、人际关系、精神病性评分分别为(1.8±0.1)、(1.9±0.1)、(1.6±0.2)、(1.7±0.2)、(1.7±0.1)、(1.2±0.3)、(1.5±0.5)、(1.3±0.5)、(1.2±0.3)分,对照组分别为(2.1±0.2)、(2.1±0.1)、(1.8±0.1)、(1.9±0.2)、(1.9±0.1)、(1.5±0.5)、(1.9±0.6)、(1.8±0.6)、(1.6±0.5)分,观察组均明显优于对照组,对比差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。观察组患者均未出现护理差错事件,护理投诉率为1.7%;对照组护理缺陷率为3.4%,护理投诉率为10.2%,比较两组患者护理缺陷率及护理投诉率差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05);观察组护理满意度为94.9%,对照组为78.0%,观察组明显高于对照组,对比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论采用手术室优质护理方式对急诊手术患者进行干预可显著改善患者生理及心理状况,并可减少护理差错及护理投诉,临床价值较高,可推广应用。
Objective To observe the effect of high-quality operation in operating room in patients undergoing emergency surgery. Methods A total of 118 patients undergoing emergency surgery between January 2014 and January 2015 were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the random number table method. The control group received routine nursing and the observation group received 59 cases. Preoperative and postoperative physical and psychological changes in both groups were compared. The incidence of nursing defects and nursing complaints were compared between the two groups, and the satisfaction of nursing service between the two groups was compared. Measurement data using t test, count data using χ2 test, P <0.05 for the difference was statistically significant. Results The heart rate, respiratory rate, diastolic blood pressure and systolic blood pressure in the observation group were (66 ± 7), (14 ± 2) / min, (76 ± 5), (120 ± 7) mm Hg 0.133 kPa and 78 ± 9, 17 ± 3, 82 ± 6 and 126 ± 6 mm Hg respectively in the control group. The indexes in the observation group were significantly better than those in the control group , The differences were statistically significant (P <0.05). The scores of depression, anxiety, hostility, horror, somatization, paranoid obsession, obsessive compulsive symptom, interpersonal relationship and psychotic score in the observation group were (1.8 ± 0.1), (1.9 ± 0.1), (1.6 ± 0.2) and (2.1 ± 0.2), (2.1 ± 0.1), (1.2 ± 0.3), (1.5 ± 0.5), (1.3 ± 0.5) and (1.8 ± 0.1), (1.9 ± 0.2), (1.9 ± 0.1), (1.5 ± 0.5), (1.9 ± 0.6), (1.8 ± 0.6) and (1.6 ± 0.5) Group, the difference was statistically significant (all P <0.05). Nursing errors were not observed in the observation group, the rate of nursing complaints was 1.7%; the nursing defect rate of the control group was 3.4% and the rate of nursing complaints was 10.2%; the difference of nursing defect rate and nursing complaint rate between the two groups was statistically significant (All P <0.05). The nursing satisfaction of the observation group was 94.9% and the control group was 78.0%, the observation group was significantly higher than the control group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions Intervention in patients with emergency operation can improve the physiological and psychological status of the patients by using high-quality operation in the operating room and reduce the nursing errors and nursing complaints. The clinical value is high and can be popularized and applied.