论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨综合护理干预对高血压脑出血的疗效及护理满意度的影响。方法选择2015年2月—2017年1月收治的高血压脑出血患者130例,随机分为干预组与对照组各65例。对照组给予常规护理,干预组给予综合护理干预分别于干预前及干预后(出院后1个月)采用抑郁自评量表(self-rating depression scale,SDS)和焦虑自评量表(selfrating anxiety scale,SAS)对患者的负性情绪进行评分,采用Barthel评分评估患者生活质量,采用功能独立性评定量表(function independent measure,FIM)评估患者自理能力,采用自行设计的调查表调查患者护理满意度。SDS、SAS、Barthel、FIM比较采用u检验,满意度比较采用χ~2检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果干预前干预组SAS、SDS评分[(58.06±6.17)、(60.08±6.68)分]与对照组[(57.90±6.73)、(59.72±6.51)分]比较差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05);与干预前比较,干预后两组SDS、SAS评分[(35.41±4.19)、(37.13±4.05)分,(50.17±5.06)、(51.24±4.42)分]均较干预前降低,干预组降低更明显,比较差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。干预前干预组Barthel评分、FIM评分[(61.09±6.67)、(80.13±7.61)分]与对照组[(60.94±6.50)、(79.16±7.40)分]比较差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05);与干预前比较,干预后两组Barthel评分、FIM评分[(79.80±6.72)、(93.02±8.86)分,(65.18±7.13)、(82.45±7.76)分]均较干预前升高,干预组升高更明显,比较差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。干预组护理满意度(96.92%)高于对照组(76.92%),比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论综合护理干预可提高高血压脑出血的疗效及护理满意度。
Objective To investigate the effect of comprehensive nursing intervention on the efficacy and nursing satisfaction of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods 130 patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage admitted from February 2015 to January 2017 were randomly divided into intervention group and control group with 65 cases each. The control group was given routine nursing. The intervention group was given comprehensive nursing intervention before and after the intervention (one month after discharge) using self-rating depression scale (SDS) and anxiety self-rating scale Scale, SAS). The Barthel score was used to evaluate the quality of life of patients. Functional independent measure (FIM) was used to evaluate the patient’s self-care ability. The self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the patient’s satisfaction degree. SDS, SAS, Barthel, FIM compared with u test, satisfaction was compared using χ ~ 2 test, P <0.05 for the difference was statistically significant. Results There was no significant difference in SAS, SDS scores between the intervention group and the control group [(58.06 ± 6.17) and (60.08 ± 6.68)] compared with the control group [(57.90 ± 6.73) and (59.72 ± 6.51) 0.05). Compared with those before intervention, the scores of SDS and SAS in the two groups after intervention were significantly lower than those before intervention [(35.41 ± 4.19), (37.13 ± 4.05), (50.17 ± 5.06), (51.24 ± 4.42) Group decreased more significantly, the difference was statistically significant (all P <0.05). There was no significant difference in Barthel score and FIM score before intervention in intervention group [(61.09 ± 6.67), (80.13 ± 7.61)] compared with [(60.94 ± 6.50), (79.16 ± 7.40) points in control group (all P> 0.05). Compared with before intervention, Barthel score, FIM score [(79.80 ± 6.72), (93.02 ± 8.86) points, (65.18 ± 7.13) and (82.45 ± 7.76) points in both groups were significantly higher than those before intervention , The intervention group increased more significantly, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). The nursing satisfaction (96.92%) in the intervention group was higher than that in the control group (76.92%), the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Comprehensive nursing intervention can improve the efficacy and nursing satisfaction of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.