不同护理模式在经外周静脉置入中心静脉置管导管感染护理中的应用比 较简

目的 探讨研究和比较不同护理模式在经外周静脉置入中心静脉置管（PICC）导管感染护理中的应用.方法 选择2009年1月～2012年12月由海南医学院附属医院胃肠肿瘤外科收治的符合标准的52例患有PICC导管感染的患者的临床资料,分成观察组（27例）和对照组（25例）,观察组采用患者及家属参与导管维护全程教育及护理的护理模式护理,对照组采用传统的护理模式进行护理.比较所有患者PICC导管感染的发生率以及发生部位;比较两组患者PICC导管感染的类别;比较观察组和对照组患者PICC导管感染的治愈情况;比较两组患者在不同的护理模式下发生的并发症情况.采用SPSS 13.0统计学数据处理软件进行资料分析,组间率的比较采用x2检验.结果 观察组的4d内治愈率和总治愈率分别为63.0％和92.6％,显著性高于对照组的36.0％和72.0％（P＜0.05）.观察组的导管堵塞、导管漏液的发生率分别为7.4％与3.7％,均显著性低于对照组的28.0％与24.0％（P＜0.05）.结论 采用患者及家属参与导管维护全程教育及护理的护理模式进行PICC导管感染的护理效果更优,值得临床进一步推广使用.

Comparison of application of different nursing modes in PICC catheter infections

Objective To integrative and compare the application of different nursing modes in PICC catheter infec tions. Methods 52 patients with catheter infection treated in Department of Gastrointestinal Tumor Surgery, the Affili ated Hospital of Hainan Medical University from January 2009 to December 2012 were divided into observed group （27 cases） and control group （25 cases）. Patients in observed group received the nursing mode that patients and their families were involved in it, while others received the traditional nursing mode that patients and their families were not involved in it. The incidence of PICC infection and location in all patients were compared. The infection categories of PICC and cure rates in two groups were compared. The complications occurring in two groups were compared. SPSS 13.0 was used to analyze the data, X2 test was used for the comparison of rate. Results The cure rate of 4 days and the total cure rate in the observed group were 63.0% and 92.6%, which were significantly higher than those of the control group which were 36.0% and 72.0% （P 〈 0.05）. The incidences of catheter jams and catheter leakage in observed group were 7.4% and 3.7%, which were significantly lower than that in the control group which were 28.0% and 24.0% （P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion The nursing mode that patients and their families are involved in it is better than the tradition-al nursing mode that patients and their families are not involved in it. It is worthy to be promoted in clinical use.