重症监护室病人家属对探视的信念及态度的调查研究

目的:了解重症监护室(ICU)家属对探视的信念及态度,比较不同探视政策对家属信念、态度及满意度的影响.方法:采用方便抽样的方法选取武汉市某三级甲等医院ICU病人家属354人为研究对象,采用ICU探视信念与态度问卷对其进行调查.结果:病人家属的信念及态度得分分别为(3.04±0.27)分和(5.62±1.08)分.实施床边探视制度的ICU病人家属信念、态度及对探视制度的满意度得分最高,其次为电话/视频探视,拒绝探视的ICU病人家属得分最低.结论:ICU病人家属对探视持积极看法和态度.探视政策的开放程度影响ICU病人家属的信念、态度及满意度.未来还需要对探视的影响进行深入探讨,以期建立一个灵活的,对病人、家属以及医护人员均友好的探视制度.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎出院患者生活质量及影响因素研究

目的:了解新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)患者出院后的生活质量及其影响因素,为优化早期干预方案,预防社区生活受限,制定相应社区康复措施提供依据。方法:选择2020年3—4月在武汉华润武钢总医院治愈出院的COVID-19患者57例,于2020年4—5月通过"问卷星"平台采用简明健康状况调查量表(SF-12V2)调查患者的生活质量;采用焦虑自评量表(SAS)调查患者的焦虑状态;采用抑郁自评量表(SDS)调查患者的抑郁状态;采用呼吸困难指数量表(mMRC)调查患者的呼吸困难程度。比较不同特征COVID-19患者生活质量的差异;分析患者生活质量与焦虑、抑郁和呼吸困难程度的相关性及其相关的影响因素。结果:共发放57份调查问卷,剔除重复及无效问卷3份,获得有效问卷54份,问卷有效率达94.74%。(1)COVID-19出院后患者生活质量情况:生理总评分和心理总评分分别为(37.02±12.32)分、(38.46±14.42)分;呼吸困难等级0~3级的分别为3例(5.56%)、45例(83.33%)、5例(9.26%)、1例(1.85%);有19例(35.19%)存在焦虑情绪(SAS≥50分)和抑郁情绪(SDS≥53分)。(2)不同特征COVID-19患者生活质量比较:不同疾病分型的患者在生理总评分方面差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(3)生活质量与焦虑、抑郁和呼吸困难程度的相关性分析:Pearson相关分析结果显示,SF-12V2生理总评分与焦虑程度(r=-0.34,P=0.011)和呼吸困难程度(r=-0.39,P=0.003)之间存在负相关性,SF-12V2心理总评分与焦虑程度(r=-0.46,P=0.001)和抑郁程度(r=-0.40,P=0.002)之间存在负相关性。(4)COVID-19患者生活质量的影响因素分析:多元线性回归分析显示,性别(β=8.27)、抑郁程度(β=-0.34)和疾病分型(β=-11.68)是患者SF-12V2生理总评分的重要决定因素(P<0.05);焦虑程度(β=-0.62)是患者SF-12V2心理总评分的重要决定因素(P<0.05)。结论:COVID-19出院患者存在呼吸困难、焦虑抑郁情绪和生活质量下降的问题;性别、疾病分型、抑郁程度和焦虑程度是COVID-19患者生活质量下降的重要因素。COVID-19患者(特别是女性患者和重型患者)出院后要尽早进行抑郁症和焦虑症的筛查和干预,减少患者负性情绪,鼓励患者适当参与康复训练,提高呼吸功能,从而促进生活质量提高。     

探究呼吸内科护理中重症患者的护理效果观察

目的观察呼吸内科护理中重症患者的护理效果。方法 2016年11月至2017年2月,在我院的呼吸内科选取了80例呼吸系统疾病重症患者进行研究。为了实验结果的明显性,将实验分成了两组。将对照组的40例患者不给予护理措施,只给予治疗和用药,护理措施全凭患者自己的计划去实行。对实验组的40例患者制定护理计划,并且实行相应的护理措施,为患者做出院指导和防护措施,从各个方面进行护理,阻止病情的进一步发展。结果实验组的40例患者的疾病控制情况要比对照组的40例患者效果要好,结果具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论呼吸系统的疾病,一般分为病原菌的侵入和自身的炎症,无论是哪一种,重症患者都会发生呼吸困难、咳嗽、咳痰等症状。如果护理措施护理得当,患者会缓解呼吸困难导致的缺氧状态,咳嗽症状也会随着痰液的减少而消失。如果没有得当的护理措施,病情会越来越重,甚至会侵害到其他脏器,导致各脏器的衰竭而死亡。     

重症单纯疱疹病毒性角膜炎延误治疗原因及综合治疗的效果观察

目的研究分析重症单纯疱疹病毒性角膜炎延误治疗的原因以及进行综合治疗的临床效果。方法选取2016年1月至2018年1月在我院接受重症单纯疱疹病毒性角膜炎治疗的病患72例(75眼),对病患的临床资料进行回顾性分析,总结分析造成病患延误治疗的原因,并根据病患的实际情况进行综合治疗,对治疗前后的效果进行评估,评价综合治疗的临床效果。结果延误治疗的原因主要由于未对原发病及病原体进行明确诊断,还有大部分病患的药物使用不正确,在给予病患综合治疗后,病患的临床症状均得到了较为明显的改善。结论导致重症单纯疱疹病毒性角膜炎延误治疗的原因主要是未明确诊断病患的原发病及病原体,以及药物使用不恰当,影响治疗效果,给予病患综合治疗后,病患的各临床症状均得到了明显的改善。     

经鼻高流量氧气湿化治疗老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭的可行性研究

ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility of transnasal heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with respiratory failure in elderly patients. MethodsA total of 176 elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with respiratory failure who were hospitalized at Peking University Shougang Hospital from December 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled, including 82 patients in an HFNC group and 94 patients in an NPPV group. After treatment, pulse oxygen saturation (SPO₂), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), oxygenation index (OI), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), comfort score, discharge rate, rate of endotracheal intubation, rate of transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality were compared between the two groups. The independent sample t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. Statistical data are expressed in percentage or number of cases and the χ² test was used for their comparisons. ResultsThe SPO₂ values at 30 min, 1 h, and 6 h were significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.049,-2.618, and -3.314, P=0.043, 0.010, and 0.001, respectively). SPO₂ before discharge was significantly lower than that of the NPPV group (t=2.162, P=0.033), but OI at each time point and before discharge had no statistical significance (P＞0.05). MAP at 6 h was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.209, P=0.029), but within the normal range. HRs at 2 h and 3 h in the HFNC group were significantly higher than those of the NPPV group (t=-2.199 and -2.336, P=0.030 and 0.021, respectively). There were no significant differences in RR, HR, or MAP between the two groups at other time points and before discharge (P＞0.05). There was no significant difference in PaCO2 between the two groups (P＞0.05). Comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NPPV group (t=-46.807, P＜0.001). There were no significant differences in discharge rate, ICU transfer rate, endotracheal intubation rate, and mortality between the two groups (P＞0.05). ConclusionHFNC is as effective as NPPV in treating elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with type Ⅰ or mild type Ⅱ respiratory failure, and HFNC is more comfortable than NPPV.