期刊文献+

两种小儿危重病评分法临床应用的比较 被引量:1

Application of Two Kinds of Danger Scoring Systems in Critical Ill Children:a Comparatire Study
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的 探讨小儿危重病护理评分法的临床应用,并与中华医学分会儿科学急诊组于1995年在全国推广的小儿危重病评分法(草案)进行比较。方法 对2005年5月至2006年4月收治的1029例患儿,应用小儿危重病护理评分系统及小儿危重病评分法(草案),于入院时、入院后24、487、2 h分别进行评分,并于第7天及出院前再次评分,同时进行器官功能衰竭的评估及预后分析。评分≤70分为病情极危重组,71-80分为危重组,81-100分为非危重组。结果 不论是入院时,还是入院后24 h,各组患儿两种评分方法间无统计学差异(P〉0.05);首次小儿危重评分值越低,病死率或自动放弃治疗的发生率越高,发生功能衰竭的器官数越多,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05);不同病情患儿出现放弃和死亡的病例有统计学差异,但两种评分方法间无统计学差异。结论 应用小儿危重病评分法能帮助判断病情及预后,对临床护理有指导意义,在儿科ICU和普通病房均有推广价值;两种评分法在一定程度上均能量化评价疾病危重的程度,并且符合率较高,其中危重病护理评分系统采用指标全面,更符合儿科临床护理特点。 Objective To discuss the application of danger scoring system in nursing critical ill children, and to compare it with the system for evaluating danger of the children with critical diseases (draft, released nationally in 1995). Methods A total of 1 029 child patients treated in our department from May 2005 to April 2006 were investigated by the 2 evaluating systems at admission, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 7 days after admission and before discharge. Meanwhile,organs failure and prognosis of patients were appraised : Patients in Group Ⅰ had a score no more than 70 scores (very dangerous); those in Group Ⅱ had a score of 71-80 (dangerous), and those in Group Ⅲ had a score of 81-100 (not dangerous). Results There was no significant difference between the 2 evaluating systems at admission and 24 h after admission ( P 〈0.05). The lower the score at first appraisement was, the higher the mortality and giving up treatment were, the more the failure of organs was ( P 〈0.05). There was significant difference in mortality and giving up treatment between patients with different scores, but the 2 evaluating methods had no significant difference. Conclusion The application of danger evaluating system for children with critical diseases is helpful for clinical nursing and is worth populating in and outside ICU. The 2 evaluating systems can quantitatively reflect the degree of illness with high accuracy. The nursing appraisement system in this study has more indices and is more suitable for pediatric nursing.
出处 《解放军护理杂志》 2007年第08B期8-10,共3页 Nursing Journal of Chinese People's Liberation Army
关键词 儿科 护理 危重病 评分 pediatrics nursing critical illness scoring
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献16

  • 1陈少华.新生儿危重病例评分法与临床疾病相关性探讨[J].新生儿科杂志,2004,19(5):222-224. 被引量:2
  • 2柳锡永,吴莉萍.新生儿疾病危重评分与多器官功能不全综合征的关系[J].小儿急救医学,2005,12(1):56-57. 被引量:7
  • 3单若冰,王晓亮,谭丽群,仇丽华.新生儿疾病危重度评分预测死亡风险比较[J].中华急诊医学杂志,2005,14(4):335-337. 被引量:18
  • 4中华医学会儿科学会急救学组.第四届全国小儿急救医学研讨会纪要[J].中华儿科杂志,1995,33:370-370. 被引量:235
  • 5American College of Critical Care Medicine of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Academy of Pediatrics.Guidelines for developing admission and discharge policies for pediatric intension care unit[ J ]. Crit Care Med, 1999, 27 : 843-845. 被引量:1
  • 6Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al.2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference[J].Crime Care Med, 2003, 31 : 1250-1256. 被引量:1
  • 7Faustino EV, Apkon M. Persistent hyperglycemia in critically ill children[ J ]. J Pediatr, 2005, 146 ( 1 ) : 30-34. 被引量:1
  • 8Sarquis AL,Miyaki M,Cat MN.The use of CRIB score for predicting neonatal mortality risk.J Pediatr,2002,78(3):225-229. 被引量:1
  • 9Gagliardi L,Cavazza A,Brunelli A,et al.Assessing mortality risk in very low birthweight infants:a comparison of CRIB,CRIB-Ⅱ,and SNAPPE-Ⅱ.Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed,2004,89:419-422. 被引量:1
  • 10Callaghan LA,Cartwright DW,O'Rourke P,et al.Infant to staff ratios and risk of mortality in very low birthweight infants.Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed,2003,88:94-97. 被引量:1

共引文献84

同被引文献6

引证文献1

二级引证文献10

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部