论文部分内容阅读
目的分析临床护理路径对肺炎患者肺功能及护理满意度的影响。方法 76例肺炎患者,按照护理方法不同分为研究组和对照组,各38例。对照组予以常规护理,研究组予以临床护理路径,比较两组患者的肺功能、日常生活能力情况及护理满意度。结果两组患者入院时二氧化碳分压(PCO2)、氧分压(PO2)、呼气流量峰值(PEF)指标比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);研究组患者出院当天的PCO2值低于对照组患者,PO2、PEF值高于对照组患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者入院时Barthel指数评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);研究组患者出院当天的Barthel指数评分为(75.5±16.2)分,明显高于对照组患者的(61.7±15.0)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组患者护理满意度为92.1%,显著高于对照组患者的71.1%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论临床护理路径具有良好的协助治疗效果,能明显改善肺炎患者的肺功能,提高其日常生活能力,且提高患者的护理满意度,值得推广应用。
Objective To analyze the influence of clinical nursing pathway on lung function and nursing satisfaction in patients with pneumonia. Methods Sixty-six patients with pneumonia were divided into study group and control group according to different nursing methods, with 38 cases in each. The control group was given routine care, and the research group was given clinical nursing pathways. The lung function, daily living ability and nursing satisfaction of the two groups were compared. Results There was no significant difference in PCO2, PO2 and PEF between the two groups (P> 0.05). The PCO2 value of the study group on the day of discharge was lower than that on the day of discharge The control group patients, PO2, PEF values were higher than the control group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in Barthel index between the two groups (P> 0.05). The Barthel index of the study group on the day of discharge was (75.5 ± 16.2) points, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (61.7 ± 15.0) , The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). The nursing satisfaction of the study group was 92.1%, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (71.1%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion The path of clinical nursing has a good effect of assisting and treating, can obviously improve lung function of patients with pneumonia, improve their daily living ability, and improve patient satisfaction of nursing, which is worth popularizing and applying.