静脉注射后不同按压针眼拔针法的应用效果比较  

Comparison of the Effects of Different Pressing Needle PullingOut Methods After Intravenous Injection

作　　者：刘芳 刘权[2] 

机构地区：[1]内蒙古自治区人民医院,内蒙古呼和浩特010017 [2]中国中医科学院北京市望京医院,北京100000

出　　处：《内蒙古医学杂志》2013年第1期120-121,共2页Inner Mongolia Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的:比较采用平行及有角度注射静脉,在静脉注射后用消毒干棉签按压针眼拔针法的应用效果(以后简称为平行法、有角度法)。方法:随机将200例行静脉注射的病人分为平行法静脉注射组100例和有角度法静脉注射组100例。平行法组采用消毒干棉签与注射静脉呈平行方向压迫注射部位;有角度组采用棉签与注射静脉有一定角度(多数为直角)方向压迫注射部位。比较两组拔针法后无血肿率及病人舒适度。结果:平行法组无血肿率为98.00%,有角度法组为80.00%;平行法组舒适度为98.00%,有角度法组为82.00%,两组比较差异具有统计学意义。结论:采用病人静脉注射完成后用消毒干棉签与注射静脉呈平行方向压迫针眼拔针法在提高无血肿率、病人舒适度方面优于采用有角度压迫针眼拔针法,值得在临床中推广使用。Objective： To compare the parallel and angled to the injection ot veto m atter intravenous rejec- tion with sterilized cotton swab pressing needle , needle withdrawal application （ later referred to as the parallel method, angle method）. Methods：Randomly 200 cases o{ intravenous injection of the patient is divided into par- allel group 100 cases and angle method 100 cases, parallel method group adopted the sterilized cotton swab with bolus is parallel to the direction of compression injection site; point group using cotton swabs and injection of vein with a certain angle （mostly rectangular ） direction compression injection site. Comparison of two groups of withdrawal of needles after hematoma rate and patient comfort. Results： Parallel group without hematoma rate was 98%, with the perspective of law group was 80% ; parallel method for comfort in 98% groups, with the perspective of law group was 82 %, in two groups, all P smaller than 0.05, the difference was statistically sig- nificant. Conclusion： The patients with intravenous completed with sterilized cotton swab with bolus is parallel to the direction of compression needle withdrawal of needles for improving hematoma rate, patient comfort is better than the angular compression needle needle withdrawal, worthy of clinical application.

关 键 词：静脉注射 拔针法 

分 类 号：R473[医药卫生—护理学]