综合评估护理在老年患者护理中对生活质量的影响

Comprehensive assessment of the impact of nursing on quality of life in elderly patients

ES评分 0

DOI 10.12208/j.ijnr. 20220037
刊名
International Journal of Nursing Research
年,卷(期) 2022, 4(2)
作者
作者单位

深圳市华中科技大学协和深圳医院 广东深圳 ;

摘要
分析老年综合评估护理用于老年病人的价值。方法 2021年3月-12月本院接诊老年病人200名,随机均分2组。试验组采取老年综合评估护理,对照组行常规护理。对比sf-36评分等指标。结果 从WHOQOL-100评分上看,干预后:试验组(89.47±3.65)分,和对照组(80.28±4.93)分相比更高(P<0.05)。从满意度上看,试验组99.0%,和对照组88.0%相比更高(P<0.05)。从SDS和SAS评分上看,干预后:试验组得分均低于对照组(P<0.05)。从不良事件上看,试验组发生率1.0%,和对照组9.0%相比更低(P<0.05)。从护理质量上看,试验组高于对照组(92.96±2.48),且住院时间用时比对照组更短(P<0.05)。结论 老年病人用老年综合评估护理,效果好,生活质量改善明显,负性情绪缓解更为迅速,不良事件发生率更低,住院时间更短。
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the value of elderly comprehensive evaluation nursing for elderly patients. Methods: From March to December 2021,our hospital received 200 elderly patients, and they were randomly divided into 2 groups. The trial group took comprehensive geriatric assessment care, and the control group underwent routine care. Contrast the sf-36 score and other indicators. Results: From the WHOQOL-100 score, postintervention: the test group (89.47±3.65) was higher than the control group (80.28±4.93) (P<0.05). In terms of satisfaction, 99.0%of the test group was higher than 88.0%of the control group (P<0.05). For both the SDS and SAS scores, the test group score was lower than the control group (P<0.05). In terms of adverse events, the incidence of the trial group was 1.0%,which was lower than 9.0%in the control group (P<0.05). In terms of the quality of care, the test group was higher than the control group (92.96±2.48), and the length of hospital stay was shorter than the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Elderly patients have good results, significantly improved quality of life, faster relief of negative mood, lower incidence of adverse events, and shorter hospital stay.
关键词
老年综合评估护理;影响;生活质量;满意度
KeyWord
Elderly Comprehensive Assessment Nursing; Influence; Quality of Life; Satisfaction
基金项目
页码 18-20
  • 参考文献
  • 相关文献
  • 引用本文

贺艳*. 综合评估护理在老年患者护理中对生活质量的影响 [J]. 国际护理学研究. 2022; 4; (2). 18 - 20.

  • 文献评论

相关学者

相关机构