摘要
目的:探讨比较不同护理模式在短暂性脑缺血反复发作患者中的护理效果。方法:选取2007年12月～2010年11月于本院进行治疗的66例短暂性脑缺血反复发作患者为研究对象,将其随机分为A组(常规护理组)和B组(人性化护理组),每组各33例,将两组患者护理前后的汉密顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、汉密顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、发作频率、发作时间及患者满意率、治疗依从性进行统计及比较。结果:护理后,B组的HAMA[(3.5±1.3)分]、HAMD[(3.6±1.5)分]评分优于A组[(6.4±1.8)、(6.5±1.5)分](t=6.852、7.145,P<0.05),发作频率[(1.7±0.8)次/月]低于A组[(3.2±1.5)次/月](t=6.589,P<0.05),发作时间[(5.0±1.5)min]短于A组[(7.2±1.8)min](t=8.145,P<0.05)。B组患者治疗依从性(93.94%)好于A组(78.79%)(χ2=6.471,P<0.05),患者满意率(100.00%)高于A组(87.88%)(χ2=7.125,P<0.05)。结论:人性化护理在短暂性脑缺血反复发作患者中的护理效果较好,优于常规护理模式。
Objective： To study and compare the nursing effects of different nursing modes in transient ischemic repeated attack. Methods： 66 patients with transient isehemic repeated attack in our hospital from December 2007 to November 2010 were selected as research object and randomly divided into group A （routine nursing mode group） and group B （humanized nursing mode group）, each group had 33 cases, then the HAMA score, HAMD score, seizure frequency, attack time and satisfaction rate, treatment compliance of the two groups were analyzed and compared. Results： The HAMA score [（3.5±1.3） points], HAMD score [（3.6±1.5） points] of group B were better than those of group A [（6.4±1.8）, （6.5±1.5） points] （t=6.852, 7.145, P〈0.05）, seizure frequency [（1.7±0.8） times/month] was lower than group A [（3.2±1.5） times/month] （t=6.589, P〈0.05）, attack time [（5.0±1.5） min] was shorter than group A [（7.2±1.8） min] （t=8.145, P〈0.05）. The treatment compliance （93.94%） was better than group A （78.79%） （χ2=6.471, P〈0.05）, the satisfaction rate （100.00%） was higher than group A （87.88%） （χ2=7.125, P〈0.05）. Conclusion： The nursing effect of humanized nursing in transient ischemic repeated attack is better and it is superior to routine nursing mode.
出处
《中国医药导报》
CAS
2011年第32期111-112,共2页
China Medical Herald
关键词
人性化护理
常规护理
短暂性脑缺血反复发作
护理效果
Humanized nursing
Routine nursing
Transient isehemic repeated attack
Nursing effects
