检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:林金香[1] 范祖燕[1] 王晓珍[1] 郭细妹[1]
机构地区:[1]中山大学附属第三医院血液肿瘤科,广州510630
出 处:《中国实用护理杂志(下旬版)》2007年第9期50-51,共2页Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing
摘 要:目的探讨根据量化评估结果进行相应护理干预对改善癌症患者大剂量化疗后口腔感染的效果。方法将270例应用大剂量化疗方案的癌症住院患者270例,随机分为干预组133例及对照组137例。干预组采用口腔评估表进行评估,根据得分情况分高危、一般、正常,并给予针对性的护理治疗措施,对照组采用常规的护理方法,比较2组口腔感染的发生情况。结果干预组化疗前1:3腔评估表评分为(8、35±2.36)分,化疗1周后为(11.23±2.61)分,化疗2周后为(12.07±3.12)分,化疗前后及化疗后1、2周评分比较差异均有统计学意义,P〈0.05;干预组口腔感染的发生率为21.0%,对照组为38.7%,2组比较差异有统计学意义,P〈0.05。结论量化评估结合相应护理干预能显著降低化疗患者口腔感染发生率,值得临床借鉴。Objective In order to know the effects of nursing intervention to amelorate stomatocace according to quantity evaluation for patients with chemotherapy. Methods Divided 270 patients with cancer into the intervention group (133 cases) and the control group(137 cases) randomly. Quantity evaluation was used in the intervention group, while the routine nuring cares was used in the control group. Compared the oral infection conditions between the two groups. Results The quantity evaluation score of intervention group was 8.35±2.36 and 12.07±3.12 respectively before and after the nursing intervention, the difference was significant, P〈0.05. The incidence rate of oral infection in the intervention group and control group was 21.0% and 38.7% respectively, the difference was significant, P〈0.05. Conclusion Quantity evaluation combined with nursing intervention can effectively ameliorate the oral infection for patients with chemotherapy.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.229