5E护理干预联合人文关怀对脑卒中恢复期患者的影响分析

来源 :中国医药指南 | 被引量 : 0次 | 上传用户:sfyaa
下载到本地 , 更方便阅读
声明 : 本文档内容版权归属内容提供方 , 如果您对本文有版权争议 , 可与客服联系进行内容授权或下架
论文部分内容阅读
目的 探究在对脑卒中恢复期患者实施护理干预期间采用5E护理干预+人文关怀联合护理措施的重要性,及其所带来的影响。方法 本项研究选取的研究对象主要为2019年1月至2021年10月于我院接受诊治和康复护理的脑卒中患者,共计114例。在开展研究之前,依据随机数字表法将患者按照住院编号随机均分成两组。其中参考组57例患者在康复护理期间接受常规护理;干预组57例在康复护理期间接受5E护理干预+人文关怀联合护理。对两组患者经不同措施干预前后的生活质量、肢体运动功能及神经功能缺损进行评估及对比。结果 在实施干预前,参“,”Objective To explore the importance of 5E nursing intervention + humanistic care combined nursing measures during the implementation of nursing intervention for patients with cerebral apoplexy convalescence,as well as its impact.Methods The subjects of this study were 114 stroke patients who received diagnosis,treatment and rehabilitation nursing in our hospital from January 2019 to October 2021.Before the study,the patients were randomly divided into two groups according to their hospitalization numbers by random number table method.Among them,57 patients in the reference group received routine care during rehabilitation care;57 patients in the intervention group also received 5E nursing intervention + humanistic care during rehabilitation nursing.The quality of life,limb motor function and neurological function defects of the two groups were evaluated and compared before and after intervention with different measures.Results Before intervention,the scores of quality of life,motor function and neurological impairment in the reference group were(15.13±3.08)points,(50.35±5.19)points,(50.16±4.31)points,respectively.Intervention group were(15.08±3.02)points,(50.38±5.06)points,(51.73±4.28)points,there was no difference in comparison results(t=1.271,0.856,1.093,P>0.05).After intervention,the scores of quality of life,motor function and neurological impairment in the reference group were(12.09±2.75)points,(67.23±6.02)points,(62.43±4.21)points,and those in the study group were(10.35±2.53)points,(79.78±5.46)points,(69.26±4.13)points,there was no significant difference in the comparison results(t=3.257,6.092,5.314,P<0.05).Before the intervention,the SAS and SDS scores of the reference group were(60.13±7.26)and(62.23±8.46)respectively,and those of the intervention group were(59.54±8.02)and(63.02±7.46).There was no difference in the comparison results(t=0.412,0.529,P>0.05).After the intervention,the SAS and SDS scores of the reference group were(42.11±5.03)and(41.03±4.98)respectively,and those of the intervention group were(35.46±5.25)and(35.02±6.13),there was no significant difference in the comparison results(t=6.905 and 5.745,P<0.05).Conclusion 5E nursing intervention combined withhumanistic care can accelerate the recovery of physical function and improve the quality of life of convalescent patients with stroke.
其他文献
目的 分析优质护理对肝性脑病患者的护理效果的影响。方法 选取我院80例肝性脑病患者作为本次研究对象,所有患者均于2018年4月至2019年4月入院,根据盲选法进行分为两组,常规组37例,实施常规护理;观察组43例,实施优质护理。对比两组患者的并发症发生情况以及护理满意度。结果 观察组患者的并发症发生率明显低于常规组(P<0.05);观察组患者的护理满意度明显高于常规组(P<0.05)。护理前,两组患者生活质量无显著差异(P>0.05),护理后,观察组生活质量比常规组显著提高(P<0.05)。两组患者护理前
目的 对心力衰竭并心律失常患者实施针对性护理干预效果进行研究。方法 选择我院于2018年1月至2019年5月收治的90例心力衰竭并心律患者为研究对象,随机均分两组,研究组与对照组各45例。对照组患者行常规护理干预,研究组患者行针对性护理干预,记录并对比两组患者临床治疗疗效(显效、有效、无效)、心功能改善情况(包括LVESD、LVEDD、LVEF等几项指标)、生活质量评分(社会限制、情绪控制、症状改善、体力限制)等。结果 护理后研究组患者LVEF、LVEDD、LVESD等各项心功能指标水平改善效果均明显较对
目的 研究分析家庭参与式护理应用于小儿支气管炎中的价值。方法 在2019年10月至2020年10月期间,收集48例小儿支气管炎患者,在其同意参与研究的前提下,设为研究对象,动态随机分组为研究组24例,参照组24例。研究组给予家庭参与式护理,参照组给予常规护理。观察两组患者不同护理措施的护理结局,得到家庭参与式护理措施的优势。结果 参照组的小儿支气管炎患者的呼吸功能不如研究组(P<0.05)。参照组的小儿支气管炎患者的护理有效率(66.67%)低于研究组的护理有效率(91.67%)(P<0.05)。参照组的