论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨护理干预对手术室非全身麻醉患者的负性情绪及护理舒适度的影响。方法抽取2014年1月—2016年5月本院接收符合研究选取标准的择期于非全身麻醉状态下行手术治疗的94例患者,根据入院先后顺序分为对照组与研究组各47例。对照组采用常规护理干预措施,研究组在常规护理基础上实施全面护理干预。比较护理前后两组患者的抑郁及焦虑评分、生活质量评分变化情况、围手术期舒适度评分,并统计两组患者的护理满意度。计量资料两组间比较采用独立样本t检验,组内比较采用配对t检验;计数资料比较采用χ2检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果干预后两组患者抑郁及焦虑评分[(50.03±4.76)、(48.68±4.73)分,(42.62±4.23)、(39.18±4.39)分]均较干预前[(55.57±5.16)、(56.71±5.17)分,(55.63±5.14)、(56.59±5.22)分]显著改善,且研究组明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。研究组患者环境、社会文化、心理精神、生理4个维度评分及总分[(23.32±3.24)、(34.31±2.50)、(35.33±4.21)、(15.31±2.21)、(107.35±6.24)分]均明显高于对照组[(17.82±3.11)、(26.31±2.77)、(28.03±4.60)、(11.31±2.50)、(85.33±5.27)分],差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。研究组护理满意度为95.74%,显著高于对照组的76.60%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。干预后两组患者生活质量评分[(55.38±6.96)、(62.78±7.11)分]均较干预前[(41.74±6.64)、(41.69±6.58)分]显著改善,且研究组明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论对手术室非全身麻醉患者实施科学护理干预措施效果显著,可有效改善患者的抑郁及焦虑等负性情绪,提高舒适度、护理满意度及生活质量,对改善临床疗效及预后具有重要意义。
Objective To investigate the effect of nursing intervention on negative emotions and nursing comfort in operating room non-general anesthesia patients. Methods From January 2014 to May 2016, 94 patients undergoing selective surgical resection under non-general anesthesia in our hospital were enrolled in our hospital from January 2014 to May 2016, and divided into control group and study group according to the order of admission. The control group used routine nursing interventions, and the research group implemented comprehensive nursing intervention on the basis of routine nursing. Depression and anxiety scores, quality of life score changes, perioperative comfort scores were compared between the two groups before and after nursing care, and nursing satisfaction was calculated in both groups. Measurement data were compared between two groups using independent samples t test, the group was compared using paired t test; count data were compared using the χ2 test, P <0.05 for the difference was statistically significant. Results After intervention, the scores of depression and anxiety in the two groups were significantly higher than those before intervention [(55.03 ± 4.76), (48.68 ± 4.73), (42.62 ± 4.23), (39.18 ± 4.39) ± 5.17), (55.63 ± 5.14) and (56.59 ± 5.22), respectively. The study group was significantly better than the control group (all P <0.05). The scores of the four dimensions of the study group such as environment, social culture, mental spirit and physiology [(23.32 ± 3.24), (34.31 ± 2.50), (35.33 ± 4.21), (15.31 ± 2.21) and (107.35 ± 6.24) ] Were significantly higher than those in the control group [(17.82 ± 3.11), (26.31 ± 2.77), (28.03 ± 4.60), (11.31 ± 2.50), (85.33 ± 5.27), respectively 0.05). The nursing satisfaction of the study group was 95.74%, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (76.60%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). After intervention, the scores of quality of life in the two groups were significantly improved ([(55.38 ± 6.96), (62.78 ± 7.11) points compared with those before intervention [(41.74 ± 6.64), (41.69 ± 6.58)], Group, the differences were statistically significant (all P <0.05). Conclusions The implementation of scientific nursing interventions in operating room non-general anesthesia patients has significant effect, which can effectively reduce negative emotions such as depression and anxiety and improve comfort, nursing satisfaction and quality of life, which is of great significance to improve clinical efficacy and prognosis.