期刊文献+

持续性防损伤联合疼痛干预对多发性骨髓瘤患者院内外安全提升与疼痛控制的效果分析 被引量:20

Efficacy of Continuous Prevention of Injury Combined with Interfereuce of Pain on Enhancement of Physical Safety and Pain Control in Patients with Multiple Myeloma
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:分析持续性防损伤联合疼痛干预对提升多发性骨髓瘤患者院内、外安全与疼痛控制的效果。方法:2016年1月至2017年12月本院多发性骨髓瘤患者233例,按照住院号单、双号分组法分为常规护理组(单号)与联合护理组(双号);常规护理组实施常规护理,联合护理组实施持续性防损伤联合疼痛干预护理。对比2组的安全事件发生情况、疼痛缓解情况、生活质量和心理状态情况。结果:联合护理组的院内、外生活意外损伤与疾病损伤发生率(3.51%和4.29%)均明显低于常规护理组(11.76%和12.61%)(P<0.05);2组入院日数字评定量表(numeric rating scale,NRS)疼痛评分无明显差异(P>0.05);干预后联合护理组NRS评分与6点行为评分均优于常规护理组(P<0.05)。2组患者干预前各维度与条目得分无明显差异(P>0.05),干预后2组的部分指标得到优化,但联合护理组患者躯体功能、角色功能、认知功能、情感功能、社会功能5项功能指标,疲劳、恶心与呕吐及疼痛症状指标,食欲丧失、失眠症状及总体健康状态得分均明显优于常规护理组(P<0.001);2组干预前的HAMA与HAMD量表得分均无明显差异(P>0.05),干预后各组量表得分均明显降低,但联合护理组得分低于常规护理组(P<0.05)。结论:持续性防损伤联合疼痛干预对多发性骨髓瘤患者具有较好的院内外安全性及疼痛控制效果。 Objective:To analyze the efficacy of continuous prevention injury combined with interference of pain on enhomcement of physical safety inside and outside hospital and pain control in patients with multiple myeloma(MM).Methods:Two hundred and thirty-three MM patients admitted in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2017 were divided into 2 group according to odd-even number of hospitalization:routine nursing group(odd number)and combined nursing group(ever number).119 patients in routine nursing group were given routine nursing,114 patients in combined nursing group were given combined nursing consisting of continuous prevention of injury combined with interference of pain.The safety event incidence,pain relief,life quality and mental status of patients in 2 groups were compared.Results:The incidence of accidental injuries and disease damages in combined nursing group was significantly lower than that in routine nursing group(3.51%and 4.29%vs 11.76%and 12.61%)(P<0.05).The numeric rating scale(NRS)pain score on the day of hospitalization was not significantly different between 2 groups(P>0.05),after interference,the NRS score and the six-point behavior score in combined nursing group were superior to those in routine nursing group(P<0.05).Before interference,the life quality scores were not significantly different between 2 groups(P>0.05),after interference,the some indicators of life quality in 2 groups were impromoved,the scores of physical function,role function,coguitive function,emotional function,and social function of patients in combined nursing group were superior to those in routine nursing group,the scores related with fatigue,nausea and vomiting,pain,loss of appetite,insomnia and overall health status of patients in combined nursing group were superior to those in routine nursing group2 groups(P>0.05),after interference,the scores of HAMA scale and HAMD scale in 2 groups both decreased,but the scores of above-mentioned scales in combined nursing group was lower than those in routine nursing group(P<0.05).Conclusion:The Continuous prevention of injury combined with interference of pain shows the better safety of inside and outside hospital and good efficacy of pain control for MM patients.
作者 张彩英 王霜华 杨美洁 ZHANG Cai-Ying;WANG Shuang-Hua;YANG Mei-Jie(Department of Endocrinology and Hematology,People's Hospital of Shenzhen Baoan District,Shenzhen 518101,Guangdong Province,China)
出处 《中国实验血液学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2019年第6期1901-1906,共6页 Journal of Experimental Hematology
关键词 多发性骨髓瘤 持续性防损伤护理 疼痛干预 安全性 疼痛控制 multiple myeloma continuous anti-injury pain intervention safety pain control
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

二级参考文献74

  • 1王存邦,欧英贤,白海,欧建锋,王晓静.自体外周血干细胞动员时骨髓及外周血相关细胞亚群的动态变化研究[J].西北国防医学杂志,2006,27(3):190-192. 被引量:5
  • 2曹小英,朱美红,时美芳,付建明,杨叶珠.脑卒中偏瘫患者发生单侧空间忽略的康复干预[J].天津护理,2006,14(4):187-188. 被引量:5
  • 3陈少玲,黄建贤,张友惠,蔡军红,彭海燕,郑粤湘.护理干预在癌痛患者治疗中的应用[J].中国误诊学杂志,2007,7(26):6235-6236. 被引量:33
  • 4Takai Y,Yamamoto-Mitani N,Okamoto Y,et al.Literature review of pain pre-valence among older residents of nursing homes.Pain Manag Nurs.2010,11:209-223.
  • 5Feldt KS,Ryden MB,Miles S.Treatment of pain in cognitively impaired compared with cognitively intact older patients with hip-fracture.J Am Geriatr Soc,1998,46:1079-1085.
  • 6Taylor LJ,Herr K.Pain intensity assessment:a comparison of selected pain intensity scales for use in cognitively intact and cognitively impaired African American older adults.Pain Manag Nurs.2003.4:87-95.
  • 7Herr KA,Spratt K,Mobily PR,et al.Pain intensity assessment in older adults:use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults.Clin J Pain,2004,20:207-219.
  • 8Tousignant-Laflamme Y,Tousignant M,Lussier D,et al.Educational needs of health care providers working in long-term care facilities with regard to pain management.Pain Res Manag,2012,17:341-346.
  • 9Jones KR,Vojir CP,Hutt E,et al.Determining mild,moderate,and severe pain equivalency across painintensity tools in nursing home residents.J Rehabil Res Dev,2007,44:305-314.
  • 10Ware LJ,Epps CD,Herr K,et al.Evaluation of the revised faces pain Scale,verbal descriptor scale,numeric rating scale,and Iowa pain thermometer in older minority adults.Pain Manag Nurs,2006,7:117-125.

共引文献515

同被引文献147

引证文献20

二级引证文献46

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部