论文部分内容阅读
目的对临床护理路径在脑梗死介入溶栓患者中的应用效果予以探讨。方法随机选取该院2014年2月—2016年8月间收治的脑梗死介入溶栓治疗的患者18例,将其随机均分为两组,分别作为对照组与观察组,为对照组患者实施常规护理干预,观察组患者在对照组的基础上应用临床护理路径开展护理干预,对比分析两组患者的护理效果。结果观察组患者的转诊时间及住院时间明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),观察组的转诊时间与住院时间分别为:(38.5±5.2)min、(14.5±3.0)d;对照组的转诊时间与住院时间分别为(68.7±4.6)min、(21.7±3.5)d;开展护理之后,观察组患者的SDS评分与SAS评分明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),开展护理之后,观察组的SDS评分、SAS评分分别为:(24.3±4.9)分、(23.6±6.3)分;对照组的SDS评分、SAS评分分别为(45.5±6.2)分、(44.5±7.1)分。结论在为脑梗死介入溶栓患者开展护理工作的过程中,应用临床护理路径的护理模式开展护理工作,能够改善其情绪状态,值得在临床应用中推广。
Objective To explore the clinical effect of clinical nursing pathways in patients with cerebral infarction interventional thrombolysis. Methods Eighteen patients with cerebral infarction who were treated by thrombolytic therapy in our hospital from February 2014 to August 2016 were randomly divided into two groups randomly and served as the control group and the observation group respectively, The routine nursing intervention and the observation group were given nursing intervention on the basis of the control group and the nursing effect was compared between the two groups. Results The referral time and hospital stay in observation group were significantly lower than those in control group (P <0.05). The referral time and hospital stay in observation group were (38.5 ± 5.2) min and (14.5 ± 3.0 d). The reference time and hospital stay in the control group were (68.7 ± 4.6) min and (21.7 ± 3.5) d, respectively. After nursing, the SDS and SAS scores in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (24.3 ± 4.9) and (23.6 ± 6.3) points in the observation group. The SDS and SAS scores of the control group were (45.5 ± 6.2) points, (44.5 ± 7.1) points. Conclusion In the process of nursing care for patients with thrombolysis due to cerebral infarction, using nursing mode of clinical nursing path to carry out nursing work can improve their emotional status and is worth popularizing in clinical application.