集束化护理对脑卒中后胃肠功能障碍及营养状况影响.docVIP

  • 4
  • 0
  • 约6.66千字
  • 约 12页
  • 2018-07-07 发布于福建
  • 举报

集束化护理对脑卒中后胃肠功能障碍及营养状况影响.doc

集束化护理对脑卒中后胃肠功能障碍及营养状况影响

集束化护理对脑卒中后胃肠功能障碍及营养状况影响   [摘要] 目的 观察集束化护理干预对脑卒中患者胃肠功能障碍和营养状况的影响。 方法 按照自愿原则对2012年7月~2013年8月于中山市三乡医院(以下简称“我院”)住院的86例脑卒中患者(干预组)采取为期2周的集束化护理干预,选择2011年3月~2012年6月于我院采取常规护理措施的83例同类患者作为对照组,比较两组的胃肠功能障碍及营养状况的变化,包括恶心呕吐、腹胀、腹痛、腹泻、便秘发生率及血红蛋白、血清白蛋白、前蛋白水平等。 结果 干预后,干预组恶心呕吐、腹胀、腹痛、腹泻、便秘等胃肠功能障碍发生率均显著低于对照组(15%比31%,23%比42%,17%比28%,8%比21%,20%比35%),差异有统计学差异(P = 0.004、0.001、0.040、0.006、0.009);干预组血红蛋白、血清白蛋白、前蛋白等营养状况指标显著高于对照组[(95.3±10.8)g/L比(90.7±11.3) g/L,(32.4±7.8)g/L比(28.1±8.2)g/L,(253.7±27.3)mg/L比(221.5±28.7)mg/L],差异有高度统计学(P = 0.008、0.001、0.000)。 结论 集束化护理干预可有效改善脑卒中患者胃肠功能障碍及营养状况,改善卒中患者的预后。   [关键词] 脑卒中;集束化护理;胃肠功能障碍;营养状况   [中图分类号] R473.5[文献标识码] B[文章编号] 1673-7210(2014)06(b)-0117-04      Influence of cluster-based nursing on gastrointestinal dysfunction and nutritional status after stroke   WU Jiangping SU Hua ZENG Wanrong LAI Huixi   Department of Internal Medicine, Sanxiang Hospital of Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province, Zhongshan 528463, China   [Abstract] Objective To investigate the influence of cluster-based nursing intervention on the gastrointestinal dysfunction and nutritional status of patients with stroke. Methods In accordance with the principle of voluntary, 86 cases with stroke (intervention group) were given cluster-based nursing for 2 weeks in Sanxiang Hospital of Zhongshan City (“our hospital” for short) from July 2012 to August 2013. 83 cases with stroke (control group) were given conventional nursing measures in our hospital from March 2011 to June 2012. The gastrointestinal dysfunction and the nutritional status, including nausea and vomiting, abdominal distension, abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation and levels of hemoglobin, serum albumin, former protein between the two groups were compared. Results After intervention, the nausea and vomiting, abdominal distension, abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation in the intervention group were significantly lower than the control group (15% vs 31%, 23% vs 42%, 17% vs 28%, 8% vs 21%, 20% vs 35%), there were significantly differen

文档评论(0)

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档