摘要
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;对照组护理前分别为(45.81±1.32)分、(46.93±1.31)分,护理后分别为(26.87±1.68)分、(29.83±1.37)分。观察组护理前SAS评分、SDS评分和对照组对比差异均无统计学意义(t=1.293、1.276,P>0.05);护理后,观察组SAS评分、SDS评分低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。②由本次研究结果得出,干预前两组患者在10:00、11:30、16:00、17:30的NRS评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);干预后,两组患者在10:00、11:30、16:00、17:30时的NRS评分均下降,且观察组明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。③观察组心理障碍评分、生理障碍评分、生理疼痛评分、社交困难评分、心理沟通评分、功能受限评分、残障评分均较对照组更高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。④护理后,观察组均明显低于对照组(t=8.265、8.253,P<0.05)。在并发症总发生率上,观察组为2例(6.67%),与对照组的6例(20.00%)对比显著更低,两组之间的差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=9.286,P<0.05)。⑤在护理总体满意度方面,观察组的28例(93.33%),和对照组的21例(70.00%)对比显著更高,两组之间的差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=9.356,P<0.05)。结论针对口腔颌面部间隙感染患者,给予优质护理具备明显的效果,能够促进患者心理状态的改善,使并发症发生率得到有效降低,并进一步提高患者对护理服务工作的总体满意程度�
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.
作者
聂晓立
NIE Xiaoli(Shenyang Stomatological Hospital,Shenyang 110002,China)
出处
《中国医药指南》
2022年第2期31-35,共5页
Guide of China Medicine
关键词
口腔颌面部
间隙感染
优质护理理念
护理效果
并发症发生率
护理总体满意度
Oral and maxillofacial region
Interstitial infection
Quality nursing concept
Nursing effect
Complication rate
Overall nursing satisfaction
