以量化评估策略为核心的调节式护理在贲门癌术后患者护理中的应用价值  

Application of quantitative evaluation strategy-centered regulated care in postoperative care of patients with cardiac cancer

作　　者：窦青青 韩吉利 高会华 Dou Qingqing;Han Jili;Gao Huihua(General Surgery Department,Huaihe Hospital of Henan University,Kaifeng Henan 475000,China)

机构地区：[1]河南大学淮河医院普通外科,河南开封475000

出　　处：《保健医学研究与实践》2022年第10期122-125,共4页Health Medicine Research and Practice

摘　　要：目的 探讨以量化评估策略为核心的调节式护理对贲门癌术后患者的护理效果,以期为临床治疗提供参考。方法本研究选取2020年1月—2021年1月在河南大学淮河医院行贲门癌手术治疗的87例患者为研究对象。采用随机数字表法将患者分为对照组(n=43)与研究组(n=44)。对照组患者采用常规术后护理,研究组患者采用以量化评估策略为核心的调节式护理干预。比较2组患者干预前后一般自我效能感量表(GSES)、自护能力测定量表(ESCA)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表(HAMA)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)及癌症患者生活质量测定量表(QOL-C30)评分。结果 干预前,2组患者GSES及ESCA评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。干预后,2组患者GSES及ESCA评分均高于干预前,且研究组高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。干预前,2组患者HAMA及HAMD评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。干预后,2组患者HAMA及HAMD评分均低于干预前,且研究组低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究组患者并发症发生率低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。干预前,2组患者QOL-C30评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。干预后,2组患者QOL-C30评分均低于干预前,且研究组低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论以量化评估策略为核心的调节式护理可改善贲门癌术后患者自我效能感和自护能力,缓解患者负性情绪,减少其并发症发生,同时能提高患者生活质量,值得临床推广应用。Objective To explore the effect of quantitative evaluation strategy-centered regulated care in postoperative care of patients with cardiac cancer, so as to provide a reference for clinical treatment. Methods Eighty-seven patients who underwent cardiac cancer surgery in Huaihe Hospital of Henan University from January 2020 to January 2021 were selected as the study participants. The patients were assigned to the control group(n=43) and the experimental group(n=44) by random number table. Routine postoperative care was used in the control group, and quantitative evaluation strategy-centered regulated care was used in the experimental group. The scores of the General Self-Efficacy Scale(GSES), Exercise of Self-Care Agency(ESCA), Hamilton Anxiety Scale(HAMA), Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD), and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30(QOL-C30) for cancer patient were compared between the two groups before and after the intervention. Results Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in GSES and ESCA scores between the two groups(P>0.05). After the intervention, the GSES and ESCA scores in the two groups were significantly higher than those before the intervention, with the experimental group higher than the control group(P<0.05). Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in HAMA and HAMD scores between the two groups(P>0.05). After the intervention, the HAMA and HAMD scores of the two groups were significantly lower than those before the intervention, with the experimental group lower than the control group(P<0.05). The incidence rate of complications in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group(P<0.05). Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in QOL-C30 scores between the 2 groups(P>0.05). After the intervention, the QOL-C30 scores of patients in both groups were significantly lower than those before the intervention, with the experimental group lower than the control group(P<0.05). Conclusion Quantitative evaluation strategy

关 键 词：贲门癌 量化评估 调节式护理 自我效能感 

分 类 号：R473[医药卫生—护理学]