全面护理干预对行呼吸治疗肺损伤患者的应用价值

目的 探究全面护理干预对行呼吸治疗肺损伤患者的护理价值,为相关护理提供参考。 方法 选取2016年6月—2017年6月于哈尔滨医科大学附属第二医院接受呼吸治疗的肺损伤患者120例,按照数字随机法分为一般护理组和全面干预组,各60例,对一般护理组患者进行用药指导、饮食护理等帮助性护理,对全面干预组患者进行全面护理干预。对2组患者护理前后心理状况、生活质量、自我护理能力以及肺损伤程度进行评价,并比较住院时间、护理质量及患者家属满意度。 结果 护理后全面干预组患者汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)评分均低于一般护理组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。护理后全面干预组生活质量优于一般护理组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。护理后全面干预组患者自我护理能力优于一般护理组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。护理后全面干预组患者肺损伤评分低于一般护理组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);全面干预组患者住院时间短于一般护理组,护理质量优于一般护理组(均P<0.05)。全面干预组家属总满意度高于一般护理组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。 结论 使用全面护理对行呼吸治疗的肺损伤患者进行干预,能够帮助患者提升自我护理能力、生活水平,改善患者心理状况,使患者肺损伤得到有效缓解,帮助患者快速恢复,使患者及家属更加满意。 

Value of comprehensive nursing intervention in patients with lung injury treated by respiratory therapy

Objective To explore the value of comprehensive nursing intervention for patients with lung injury undergoing respiratory therapy. Methods A total of 120 patients with lung injury who received respiratory treatment in our hospital from June 2016 to June 2017 were selected and divided into general nursing group and comprehensive intervention group according to the random number method, 60 cases in each group. The general nursing group were given medication guidance, dietary nursing and other helpful nursing. The comprehensive intervention group were given comprehensive nursing intervention. Psychological status, quality of life, self-care ability and degree of lung injury were evaluated before and after nursing, and hospitalization time, nursing quality and satisfaction of patients' families were compared. Results The scores of Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) in the comprehensive intervention group were lower than that in the general nursing group (all P<0.05). After nursing, the quality of life in the comprehensive intervention group was better than that in the general nursing group (all P<0.05). The self-care ability of the comprehensive intervention group was better than that of the general nursing group (all P<0.05). The lung injury score of the comprehensive intervention group was lower than that of the general nursing group (P<0.05). The hospitalization time of the comprehensive intervention group was shorter than that of the general nursing group, and the nursing quality was better than that of the general nursing group (all P<0.05). The total satisfaction of family members in comprehensive intervention group was higher than that in general nursing group (P<0.05). Conclusion Intervention with comprehensive nursing can help patients improve their self-care ability and living standard, improve their psychological status, effectively alleviate the severity of lung injury, help patients recover quickly, and make patients and their families more satisfied.