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:董春玲[1] DONG Chun-ling(Linyi People's Hospital,Linyi 276000,China)
出 处:《山东医学高等专科学校学报》2019年第1期55-57,共3页Journal of Shandong Medical College
基 金:临沂市科技发展计划项目(No.201818025)
摘 要:目的探讨院内感染的防控措施。方法选择482例风湿免疫性疾病患者,将其随机分为试验组与对照组,各241例。对照组实施常规护理,试验组先运用HFMEA进行风险评估后再实施常规护理。对比分析两组患者的院内感染控制情况。结果试验组在合并其他疾病、侵入性操作、留置尿管、应用免疫抑制剂药物等方面的院内感染率均低于对照组(χ~2=3.86~4.96;P<0.05)。结论在风湿免疫性疾病患者中实施医疗失效模式,医院感染防控效果较好。Objective To explore prevention and control measures for nosocomial infections. Methods A total of 482 patients with rheumatic immune disease were randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group, 241 cases each. The control group was given routine care, and the trial group first used HFMEA for risk assessment before implementing routine care. Comparative analysis of nosocomial infection control in the two groups of patients. Results The in-hospital infection rate of the experimental group in combination with other diseases, invasive procedures, indwelling catheters, and application of immunosuppressive drugs was lower than that of the control group (χ^2=3.86~4.96;P<0.05). Conclusion When the medical failure mode is implemented in patients with rheumatic immune diseases, the effect of hospital infection prevention and control is better.
关 键 词:医疗失效模式与效应分析 风湿免疫性疾病 医院感染
分 类 号:R197[医药卫生—卫生事业管理]
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:216.73.216.222