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:缪玲莉[1]
机构地区:[1]华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院重症医学科,湖北 武汉
出 处:《护理学》2021年第6期730-735,共8页Nursing Science
摘 要:目的:分析人文关怀联合营养支持在维持性血液透析患者治疗中的应用及其有效性。方法:抽取出在院内接受血液透析治疗的患者100例作分组研究,将其参考随机数字抽样原则进行分组,其中常规护理的50例患者为对照组,人文关怀联合营养支持的50例患者为观察组,对比两种护理方案的应用效果。结果:于干预前两组患者的血清白蛋白、血红蛋白等水平均未呈现出显著差异,但经不同方案干预后,观察组患者血清白蛋白、血红蛋白等水平均显著高于对照组;在干预前,两组患者的SAS与SDS评分均超过63分,经不同方案干预后,观察组SAS评分为50.02 ±3.06分,显著小于对照组的56.14±3.26分,观察组SDS评分为52.26 ±3.44分,显著小于对照组的60.25±3.05分;观察组50例患者中,有1例患者表示不满意,总满意度为98.00%,对照组50例患者中,有9例患者表示不满意,总满意度为82.00%,组间对比差异显著,各指标对比差异均具有统计学意义(PObjective: To analyze the applicationand effectiveness of human care combined with nutritional support in maintenancehemodialysis patients. Methods: One hundred patients who underwent hemodialysisin the hospital were enrolled in a group study. They were grouped according tothe principle of random number sampling. 50 patients with routine care were thecontrol group, and 50 patients with human care and nutritional support wereincluded. For the observation group, compare the application effects of the twotreatment programs. Results: There was no significant difference in serum albumin and hemoglobin between the two groupsbefore intervention. However, after intervention with different regimens, thelevels of serum albumin and hemoglobin in the observation group weresignificantly higher than those in the control group;before the intervention,the SAS and SDS scores of the two groups were more than 63 points. Afterdifferent interventions, the SAS score of the observation group was 50.02 ±3.06,which was significantly lower than the control group of 56.14 ±3.26, and theobservation group had the SDS score of 52.26 ±3.44. The score wassignificantly lower than that of the control group of 60.25 ±3.05;of the 50patients in the observation group, 1 patient expressed dissatisfaction, thetotal satisfaction was 98.00%, and among the 50 patients in the control group,9 patients expressed dissatisfaction. The satisfaction rate was 82.00%, and thedifference between the groups was significant. The difference of the indexes was statistically significant (P
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:216.73.216.55