慢性盆腔炎住院患者应用阶段性护理的效果分析

Analysis of the Effect of Phased Nursing for Inpatients with Chronic Pelvic Inflammation

目的分析慢性盆腔炎住院患者应用阶段性护理的效果。方法随机抽取150例患者,均是于2018年7月—2020年3月在该院中治疗的慢性盆腔炎患者,按住院顺序分为m组与n组,前75例实施阶段性护理,后75例实施基础管理。对比两组临床症状评分、炎性因子、护理满意度、治疗依从性等。结果护理前,m组和n组临床症状评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);护理后,m组临床症状评分相较n组更低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。护理前,m组和n组炎性因子水平差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);护理后,m组炎性因子相较n组更少,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。护理后,m组护理满意度94.67%相较n组86.67%更高,差异有统计学意义(χ^2=7.345,P<0.05)。护理后,m组治疗依从性94.67%相较n组86.67%更高,差异有统计学意义(χ^2=7.345,P<0.05)。护理前,生活质量评分,m组为(39.12±11.56)分,n组为(39.01±11.45)分,差异有统计学意义(t=0.565,P>0.05)。护理后,m组生活质量评分(57.56±12.64)分相较n组(47.56±11.02)分更好,差异有统计学意义(t=7.565,P<0.05)。护理后,m组不良反应发生率5.33%相较n组13.33%更低,差异有统计学意义(χ^2=5.654,P<0.05)。结论慢性盆腔炎住院患者应用阶段性护理的效果更甚。

Objective To analyze the effect of phased nursing for inpatients with chronic pelvic inflammatory disease.Methods 150 patients were randomly selected, all of whom were patients with chronic pelvic inflammatory disease who were treated in the hospital from July 2018 to March 2020. They were divided into two groups m and n according to the order of hospitalization. The first 75 patients received staged care. The last 75 cases implemented basic management and compared the two groups of clinical symptom scores, inflammatory factors, nursing satisfaction, treatment compliance, etc. Results Before nursing, the clinical symptom scores of group m and group n was not statistically significant(P>0.05);after nursing,the clinical symptom score of group m was lower than that of group n, which was statistically significant(P<0.05). Before nursing, the inflammatory factors of group m and group n was not statistically significant(P>0.05);after nursing, group m had fewer inflammatory factors than group n, which was statistically significant(P<0.05). After nursing, the nursing satisfaction of group m 94.67% was higher than that of group n 86.67%, which was statistically significant(χ^2=7.345, P<0.05). After nursing, the treatment compliance of group m 94.67% was higher than that of group n 86.67%,the difference was statistically significant(χ^2=7.345, P<0.05). Before nursing, the quality of life scores of group m was(39.12±11.56) points and group n was(39.01±11.45) points,the difference was statistically significant(t=0.565, P>0.05). After nursing, the quality of life score in group m(57.56±12.64) points was better than that in group n(47.56±11.02) points, which was statistically significant(t=7.565, P<0.05). After nursing, the incidence of adverse reactions in group m 5.33% was lower than that in group n 13.33%, the difference was statistically significant(χ^2=5.654, P<0.05). Conclusion The effect of phased nursing in hospitalized patients with chronic pelvic inflammatory disease is even better.