运用品管圈工具提高腰椎围手术期患者住院体验与满意度

Use quality tube coil tools to improve the hospitalization experience and satisfaction of lumbar perioperative patients

ES评分 0

DOI 10.12208/j.ijnr.20220259
刊名
International Journal of Nursing Research
年,卷(期) 2022, 4(6)
作者
作者单位

新疆巴音格楞蒙古自治州人民医院脊柱外科 新疆巴音格楞蒙古自治州 ;

摘要
研究利用品管圈工具后腰椎围手术期患者住院体验感与满意度情况。方法 研究对象:120例腰椎围手术期患者。研究时间:2020年和2021年。研究内容:将2020年未运用品管圈工具腰椎围手术期患者设定为对照组,为60例,将2021年运用品管圈工具腰椎围手术期患者设定为观察组,为60例。利用品管圈工具,建立品管圈活动,自制腰椎围手术期患者住院体验与满意度调查表,分析活动前、活动后患者体验及满意度。研究根本目的:对比运用品管圈工具前、后腰椎围手术期患者住院体验与满意度。结果 观察组患者满意度明显高于对照组患者满意度;观察组护理质量评分也明显高于对照组护理质量评分,(P<0.05)为差异显著,有统计学意义。结论 品管圈工具能够提高护理水平,保证腰椎围手术期患者良好住院体验与满意度,值得临床重视。
Abstract
Objective: To study the hospitalization experience and satisfaction of lumbar perioperative patients after using quality tube coil tools. Methods: Study object: 120 patients with lumbar perioperative period. Study duration: 2020 and 2021.Study content: The lumbar perioperative patients in 2020 were set as the control group for 60 cases, and the lumbar perioperative patients in 2021 were set as the observation group for 60 cases. Using the quality tube ring tool, establish the quality tube circle activity, self-made lumbar perioperative patient inpatient experience and satisfaction questionnaire, and analyze the patient experience and satisfaction before and after the activity. Basic purpose of the study: to compare the hospitalization experience and satisfaction of patients with before and after lumbar spinal coil tools. Results: The satisfaction of observation group was significantly higher than that of control group; the quality of observation group was significantly higher than that of control group, (P <0.05). Conclusion: The tool can improve the nursing level and ensure the good hospitalization experience and satisfaction, which is worthy of clinical attention.
关键词
品管圈工具;腰椎围手术期;满意度;住院体验
KeyWord
Pipe ring tool; lumbar perioperative period; satisfaction; hospitalization experience
基金项目
页码 52-54
  • 参考文献
  • 相关文献
  • 引用本文

郭沁宜*,李娜. 运用品管圈工具提高腰椎围手术期患者住院体验与满意度 [J]. 国际护理学研究. 2022; 4; (6). 52 - 54.

  • 文献评论

相关学者

相关机构