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:张玉香[1] 朱玉芹[2] 赵岩[3] 刘晓青[4] 尹希凤[3]
机构地区:[1]山东省滨州市人民医院质量控制办公室,256610 [2]山东省滨州市人民医院护理部,256610 [3]山东省滨州市人民医院医院发展部,256610 [4]山东省滨州市人民医院医院办公室,256610
出 处:《中华现代护理杂志》2009年第16期1532-1535,共4页Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
摘 要:目的探讨呼唤护理对重型颅脑损伤迁延性昏迷患者预后的影响。方法将66例重型颅脑损伤迁延性昏迷患者随机分为干预组34例和对照组32例。对照组采用神经外科综合治疗常规护理方法,干预组在此基础上增加系统、有效的呼唤护理。观察患者住院各个阶段GCS评分和昏迷恢复情况以及住院天数。结果干预组住院1个月时GCS评分、昏迷恢复情况明显优于对照组;2个月时清醒率明显高于对照组;出院时意识恢复情况明显优于对照组,住院天数明显少于对照组。结论呼唤护理对促进重型颅脑损伤迁延性昏迷患者的恢复、改善其预后有积极的影响。Objective To explore the influence of efficient communicational humanistic nursing care on severe craniocerebral injury patients with persistent coma. Methods A total of 66 severe craniocerebral injury patients with persistent coma were divided into the two groups, both were received the same treatment and same nursing routine care, in addition, treatment group (34cases) were received an efficient communicational humanistic nursing care additional. GCS score in different stages, coma recovery and hospitalized days of patients were observed. Results The scores of GCS and coma recovery in treatment group showed better than that in control group after 1 month hospitalization, the sober time were also higher after 2 month hospitalization, and consciousness recovery showed better when the patients were discharged the hospital, while the hospitalization days were shorter than control group ( P 〈 0. 05 ). Conclusions Communicational humanistic nursing care can obviously improve the prognosis of severe craniocerebral injury patients with persistent coma.
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:216.73.216.30