不同护理模式在阑尾手术患者中的综合护理效果观察(1)
 |
| 第1页 |
参见附件(2065KB，2页)。
[作者简介] 李发雨(1965-)，女，1986年毕业于河南省南阳卫生学校护理专业，2000年通过自学取得郑州大学护理专科学历，2001年晋升为主管护师。
[摘要] 目的：比较不同护理模式在阑尾手术患者中的综合护理效果。方法：选取2008年2月~2011年3月于我院进行手术治疗的96例阑尾炎患者，将其随机分为A组(常规护理组)和B组(Orem自理模式组)，每组各48例，将两组患者的住院时间、治疗依从性、患者满意率及治疗前后的SF-36评分结果进行统计及比较。结果：B组住院时间短于A组[(4.0±1.1)d vs(5.3±1.2)d(t=5.124，P<0.05)]，治疗依从性、患者满意率均优于对A组[(89.58%、100.00%)vs(77.08%、85.42%)(χ2=4.123、9.452，P<0.05，P<0.01)]，治疗后SF-36评分高于A组[(76.8±5.6)、(82.3±6.5)、(76.8±6.5)、(70.3±6.7)、(75.9±7.0)、(84.3±8.0)、(83.6±7.0)、(82.3±5.7)分] vs [(68.9±5.9)、(66.9±7.1)、(65.8±5.9)、(59.6±6.3)、(68.9±6.3)、(72.9±8.2)、(71.6±7.2)、(71.3±6.0)分]，两组比较，差异有统计学意义(t=5.684、9.865、4.336、9.374、4.789、9.669、10.123、9.771，P<0.05或P<0.01)。结论：Orem自理模式在阑尾手术患者中的综合护理效果较好，可在阑尾炎手术患者中推广应用。
[关键词] Orem自理模式；常规护理；阑尾手术；护理效果
[中图分类号] R473.6 [文献标识码]A[文章编号]1673-7210(2011)08(a)-111-02
The observation on the comprehensive nursing effects of different nursing modes in appendix surgery
LI Fayu
The Second Out-patient Department, the People's Hospital of Tongbai County, He′nan Province, Tongbai 474750, China
[Abstract] Objective: To compare the comprehensive nursing effects of different nursing modes in appendix surgery. Methods: 96 patients with appendicitis in our hospital from February 2008 to March 2011 were selected as research object, and they were randomly divided into group A (routine nursing group) and group B (Orem self-care model group), there were 48 cases in each group. Length of Stay, treatment compliance, patients′ satisfaction and SF-36 score were analyzed and compared before and after the treatment. Results: The hospital stay of group B was shorter than that of group A [(4.0±1.1)d vs (5.3±1.2)d (t=5.124, P<0.05)]，treatment compliance and patients′ satisfaction were better than those of group A [(89.58%, 100.00%) vs (77.08%, 85.42%) (χ2=4.123, 9.452, P<0.05, P<0.01)]，SF-36 scores were higher than that of group A [(76.8±5.6), (82.3±6.5), (76.8±6.5), (70.3±6.7), (75.9±7.0), (84.3±8.0), (83.6±7.0), (82.3±5.7) scores vs (68.9±5.9), (66.9±7.1), (65.8±5.9), (59.6±6.3), (68.9±6.3), (72.9±8.2), (71.6±7.2), (71.3±6.0) scores], there were significant differences in two groups (t=5.684, 9 ......
您现在查看是摘要介绍页，详见PDF附件(2065KB，2页)。