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
机构地区:[1]江苏省南京市市级机关医院老年科,江苏南京210018 [2]江苏省南京市市级机关医院护理部,江苏南京210018
出 处:《中医学报》2014年第B07期149-149,共1页Acta Chinese Medicine
摘 要:目的比较注射器给水法与吸管给水法对吞咽障碍老年患者饮水呛咳的改善效果.方法:80 例脑卒中后饮水呛咳老年患者在常规吞咽功能训练指导及心理护理的基础上被随机分成两组,分别采用注射器给水法(注射器给水法组,n=40 例)及吸管给水法(吸管给水法组,n=40 例)每日进行饮水训练,2 个月后依据洼田饮水试验法评估并比较两组患者饮水呛咳的改善效果.结果:经训练治疗后两组患者吞咽功能均明显改善,注射器给水法组患者饮水呛咳的治疗总有效率为87.5%(35/40),显著高于吸管给水法组(67.5%,27/40),P〈0.05; 注射器给水法组基本治愈率为60%(24/40),吸管给水法组基本治愈率为37.5%(15/40),两者比较具有统计学差异(P〈0.05).结论:对老年吞咽障碍患者在常规吞咽功能训练指导及心理护理的基础上,采用注射器给水法较吸管给水法能够更有效改善患者饮水呛咳状况.Object Compare effects of feeding water to older patients with swallowing dysfunction through syringes and straws. Methods: 80 older patients with water chokedcough were randomly divided into two groups after regular swallowing function training and psychotherapy. Older patients in first group were fed water through syringes (n=40), whilepatients in second group were fed water through straws (n=40). Compare effects of improvement of both groups after two months of drinking training. Results: Both groups hadsignificant improvement of swallowing function. The total effective rate of first group is 87.5%(35/40), which is dramatically higher than the second group (67.5%, 27/40), p〈0.05; Thebasic curative rate is 60% (24/40) and 37.5% (15/40) respectively. There is a statistically significant difference between two groups (p〈0.05). Conclusion: It is better to reduce waterchoked cough when feeding water to older patients with swallowing dysfunction through syringes than straws after regular swallowing function training and psychotherapy.
关 键 词:饮水呛咳 注射器给水法 吞咽功能训练护理探讨
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:216.73.216.94