医院-社区-家庭管理模式对COPD无创通气患者肺功能及生活质量的影响  

Effects of ＂Hospital-Community-Family＂ management mode on pulmonary function recovery and quality of life in patients with COPD noninvasive ventilation

作　　者：陶爱伟[1] 刘旻[2] 辅桓钦[2] Tao Aiwei;Liu Min;Fu Huanqin(Emergency Department, Huzhou First People＇s Hospital, Zhejiang Province, Huzhou 313000, China（Tao A W;Respiratory Department, Huzhou First People＇s Hospital, Zhejiang Province, Huzhou 313000, China（Liu M, Fu HQ)

机构地区：[1]浙江省湖州市第一人民医院急诊科,313000 [2]浙江省湖州市第一人民医院呼吸内科,313000

出　　处：《中华现代护理杂志》2018年第7期788-792,共5页Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing

基　　金：浙江省医药卫生科研基金项目（2017KY641）

摘　　要：目的 探讨医院-社区-家庭管理模式对COPD无创通气患者肺功能恢复及生活质量的影响,为COPD康复管理提供参考.方法 选择2013年2月—2016年6月住院治疗的COPD无创通气患者180例,按照随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,各90例.出院时观察组给予医院-社区-家庭管理模式,对照组给予常规出院指导.出院前和管理后6个月患者复诊时进行肺功能测试和圣乔治呼吸问卷（SGRQ）调查,比较两组肺功能和生活质量. 结果 管理后6个月,观察组患者肺活量（FVC）为（2.35±0.46）L,第1秒用力呼气量（FEV1）为（1.62±0.64）L,FEV1%为（72.84±13.75）%,FEV1/FVC（67.57±10.28）%,呼气峰流速（PEF）为（366.72±28.73）L/min;对照组患者分别为FVC（1.96±0.45）L,FEV（11.44±0.53）L,FEV1% （67.91±13.05）%,FEV1/FVC（62.41±10.31）%,PEF（342.83±26.64）L/min;观察组肺功能改善情况优于对照组,差异有统计学意义（t值分别为5.750、2.055、2.467、3.362、5.785;P〈0.05）.观察组管理后呼吸症状、活动受限、疾病影响、SGRQ总分分别为（51.27±8.64）、（50.72±9.45）、（51.49±11.69）、（51.28±10.42）分,对照组分别为（58.49±9.41）、（56.49±10.36）、（57.83±12.53）、（57.74±11.04）分,观察组SGRQ评分优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义（t值分别为5.362、3.904、3.510、4.037;P〈0.01）.结论 对COPD无创通气患者实施医院-社区-家庭管理模式有利于改善患者肺功能,提高患者生活质量.Objective To explore the effects of ＂Hospital-Community-Family＂ management mode on pulmonary function recovery and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease （COPD） noninvasive ventilation, so as to provide reference for the COPD rehabilitation management. Methods From February 2013 to June 2016, a total of 180 COPD patients with noninvasive ventilation in hospital were selected as the research objects and randomly divided into observation group and control group by random number table method, with 90 cases in each group. The observation group adopted the ＂Hospital-Community-Family＂management mode, while the patients in the control group were given routine discharge guidance. The lung function and quality of life were compared between the two groups before the intervention and after 6 months of management. Results After 6 months management, the forced vital capacity （FVC） of the observation group patients was （2.35±0.46）; the forced expiratory volume in one second （FEV1） was （1.62±0.64）; the forced expiratory volume in one second to forced vital capacity rated （FEV1%） was （72.84±13.75）; FEV1/FVC was （67.57±10.28）%; the peak expiratory flow （PEF） was （366.72±28.73） L/min. While those indicators of the control group were （1.96±0.45）, （1.44±0.53）, （67.91±13.05）, （62.41±10.31）% and （342.83±26.64） L/min respectively. It was indicated that the pulmonary function recovery of the observation group was better than that of the control group, and the difference was statistical significant （t=5.750,2.055,2.467,3.362,5.785;P〈0.05）.The respiratory symptoms, activity limitation, disease influence and the total score of St George＇s respiratory questionnaire （SGRQ） were （51.27±8.64）, （50.72±9.45）, （51.49±11.69） and （51.28±10.42）, and those of the control group were （58.49±9.41）, （56.49±10.36）, （57.83±12.53） and （57.74±11.04） respectively. The differences were all statistical

关 键 词：肺疾病 慢性阻塞性 生活质量 肺功能 医院-社区-家庭管理模式 

分 类 号：R473.2[医药卫生—护理学]