优质护理理念在口腔颌面部间隙感染护理中的应用效果

来源 :中国医药指南 | 被引量 : 0次 | 上传用户:hejiashuo
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 以口腔颌面部间隙感染患者为例,评价优质护理理念在护理中的应用效果。方法 本次将我院在2018年2月至2019年1月收治的60例口腔颌面部间隙感染患者作为研究对象,按随机数字表法分成两个不同的组别,每组平均30例;其中对照组给予常规护理,观察组给予优质护理,护理结束后分析比较两组临床护理效果。结果 ①在焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分、抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分方面,观察组护理前分别为(45.82±1.34)分、(46.90±1.32)分,护理后分别为(13.04±1.61)分、(14.89±1.32)分;“,”Objective To analyze and evaluate the application effect of quality nursing concept in patients with oral and maxillofacial space infection. Methods Sixty cases of patients with oral and maxillofacial space infection admitted to our hospital from February 2018 to January 2019 were selected as the research object. They were divided into two different groups according to random number table method, with an average of 30 cases in each group. Among them, the control group was given routine nursing, the observation group was given quality nursing, and the clinical nursing effect of the two groups was analyzed and compared after the end of nursing. Results (1) The scores of self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and self-rating depression scale (SDS) in the observation group were (45.82±1.34) points and (46.90±1.32) points before nursing, and (13.04±1.61) points and (14.89±1.32) points after nursing, respectively. In the control group, the scores were (45.81±1.32) points and (46.93±1.31) points before nursing, and (26.87±1.68) points and (29.83±1.37) points after nursing. There were no significant differences between the observation group before nursing SAS score, SDS score and the control group (t =1.293, 1.276, P >0.05). After nursing, the SAS score and SDS score of the observation group were lower than those of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). (2) The results of this study showed that there was no significant difference in the NRS scores of the two groups at 10:00, 11:30, 16:00 and 17:30 before the intervention (P >0.05); after the intervention, the NRS scores of the two groups decreased at 10:00, 11:30, 16:00 and 17:30, and the observation group was significantly lower than the control group (P <0.05). (3) The scores of psychological disorder, physiological disorder, physiological pain, social difficulty, psychological communication, functional limitation and disability in the observation group were higher than those in the control group (P <0.05). (4) After nursing, the observation group was significantly lower than the control group (t =8.265, 8.253, P <0.05). The total incidence of complications in the observation group 2 cases (6.67%) was significantly lower than that in the control group 6 cases (20.00%), and there was a significant difference between the two groups (χ 2=9.286, P <0.05). (5) In terms of overall nursing satisfaction, the observation group of 28 cases (93.33%), and the control group of 21 cases (70.00%) contrast was significantly higher, there was a significant difference between the two groups (χ 2=9.356, P <0.05). Conclusion For patients with oral and maxillofacial space infection, giving high-quality nursing care has obvious effect, can promote the improvement of patients\' psychological state, make the incidence of complications was effectively reduced, and further improve the overall satisfaction of patients with nursing services.
其他文献
目的 分析脑梗死疾病特点,评价延续护理干预对提升患者自护能力?生活质量方面的价值?方法 选择我院2020年6月至2021年2月收治的脑梗死患者120例,依据随机法分为对照组(60例,采用常规护理)和观察组(60例,采用常规护理+ 延续护理干预),比较两组患者的自护能力与生活质量状况,以自我护理能力量表(ESCA)评估脑梗死患者的自护能力,以生活质量量表(GQOL-74)评估脑梗死患者的生活质量?结果 观察组患者干预后自我概念?自护知识?自护动机?自护技能评分均明显高于对照组,P<0.05;观察组患者干预后
目的 对于患有妊娠早期合并宫颈息肉出血的患者,在临床治疗时使用线圈套扎法进行治疗的临床效果,为今后临床治疗提供依据?方法 此次研究试验的研究对象在2018年3月至2019年3月期间,选取在我院接受治疗的妊娠早期合并宫颈息肉出血的患者,一共选取82例,按照入院接受治疗的先后顺序随机均匀分为两组,每组患者人数均为41例,两组患者的治疗方式不同?治疗时,对照组选择保守药物进行治疗,观察组选择线圈套进行治疗,对两组治疗的效果加以观察,比较两组患者在治疗总有效率?阴道流血时间?阴道复发流血症状的概率以及患者的流产概
目的 分析探讨对焦虑症患者开展亲情护理干预的临床效果?方法 选取本院收治的68例焦虑症患者开展本次研究,选取时间为2019年11月至2020年11月,采用数字表法分组,将所有患者均分为参照组和研究组两组,每组34例?给予参照组常规护理,给予研究组亲情护理干预,比较两组患者的护理效果?结果 研究组干预后的焦虑(SAS)评分明显低于参照组,组间对比差异有显著性(P<0.05);研究组干预后的生理功能评分?心理功能评分和社会功能评分均明显优于参照组,组间对比差异有显著性(P<0.05);研究组的整体护理满意度9