Effects of eight-step process and four-track cross check quality control in postoperative care for patients with glioma

Xiaohong Xie
{"title":"Effects of eight-step process and four-track cross check quality control in postoperative care for patients with glioma","authors":"Xiaohong Xie","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.CN115682-20190718-02566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo explore the effects of eight-step process and four-track cross check quality control in postoperative care for patients with glioma. \n \n \nMethods \nTotally 126 patients with glioma who received surgery in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University from December 2015 to December 2018 were selected for this prospective study, and divided into the observation group (n=63) and the control group (n=63) according to the random number table. Patients in the observation group received nursing intervention based on the eight-step process combined with the four-track cross check quality control, while patients in the control group received routine nursing after operation. The incidence of adverse nursing events and postoperative complications, rehabilitation indicators, psychological status (SAS, SDS) , cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and quality of life scores were compared between the two groups. \n \n \nResults \nThe incidence of adverse nursing events in the observation group was 7.94% (5/63) , lower than 20.63% (13/63) in the control group (P<0.05) . The incidence of complications in the observation group was 11.11% (7/63) , lower than 25.40% (16/63) in the control group (P<0.05) . The first feeding time, ureteral removal time, the first time to get out of bed, and the length of hospital stay in the observation group were shorter than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05) . After intervention, the Self-Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Depression Scale (SDS) scores of both groups decreased (P<0.05) , and the SAS and SDS scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05) . The physical, emotional, and cognitive fatigue scores in the CRF scale of both groups were reduced (P<0.05) , and the scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05) . After intervention, the physical, cognitive, emotional and social function as well as overall health status scores in the quality of life scale of both groups increased (P<0.05) , and the physical, emotional, social function and overall health status scores of the observation group were higher than those of the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05) . \n \n \nConclusions \nThe eight-step process combined with the four-track cross check quality control for postoperative care of patients with glioma can reduce the incidence of adverse nursing events and complications, alleviate negative emotions of patients, ameliorate CRF, and improve their quality of life. \n \n \nKey words: \nNeuroglioma; Neurosurgery; Postoperative complication; Cancer-related fatigue; Quality of life; Eight-step process; Four-track cross check quality control","PeriodicalId":10070,"journal":{"name":"中华现代护理杂志","volume":"26 1","pages":"1354-1358"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华现代护理杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.CN115682-20190718-02566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To explore the effects of eight-step process and four-track cross check quality control in postoperative care for patients with glioma. Methods Totally 126 patients with glioma who received surgery in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University from December 2015 to December 2018 were selected for this prospective study, and divided into the observation group (n=63) and the control group (n=63) according to the random number table. Patients in the observation group received nursing intervention based on the eight-step process combined with the four-track cross check quality control, while patients in the control group received routine nursing after operation. The incidence of adverse nursing events and postoperative complications, rehabilitation indicators, psychological status (SAS, SDS) , cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and quality of life scores were compared between the two groups. Results The incidence of adverse nursing events in the observation group was 7.94% (5/63) , lower than 20.63% (13/63) in the control group (P<0.05) . The incidence of complications in the observation group was 11.11% (7/63) , lower than 25.40% (16/63) in the control group (P<0.05) . The first feeding time, ureteral removal time, the first time to get out of bed, and the length of hospital stay in the observation group were shorter than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05) . After intervention, the Self-Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Depression Scale (SDS) scores of both groups decreased (P<0.05) , and the SAS and SDS scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05) . The physical, emotional, and cognitive fatigue scores in the CRF scale of both groups were reduced (P<0.05) , and the scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05) . After intervention, the physical, cognitive, emotional and social function as well as overall health status scores in the quality of life scale of both groups increased (P<0.05) , and the physical, emotional, social function and overall health status scores of the observation group were higher than those of the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05) . Conclusions The eight-step process combined with the four-track cross check quality control for postoperative care of patients with glioma can reduce the incidence of adverse nursing events and complications, alleviate negative emotions of patients, ameliorate CRF, and improve their quality of life. Key words: Neuroglioma; Neurosurgery; Postoperative complication; Cancer-related fatigue; Quality of life; Eight-step process; Four-track cross check quality control
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
八步流程和四轨交叉检查质量控制在胶质瘤患者术后护理中的作用
目的探讨八步流程和四轨交叉检查质量控制在胶质瘤患者术后护理中的作用。方法选取2015年12月至2018年12月在海南医科大学附属第二医院接受手术治疗的胶质瘤患者126例作为前瞻性研究对象,按随机数字表法分为观察组(n=63)和对照组(n=63)。观察组患者接受八步流程结合四轨交叉检查质量控制的护理干预,对照组患者接受术后常规护理。比较两组患者不良护理事件及术后并发症发生率、康复指标、心理状态(SAS、SDS)、癌症相关疲劳(CRF)及生活质量评分。结果观察组护理不良事件发生率为7.94%(5/63),低于对照组20.63%(13/63),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组并发症发生率为11.11%(7/63),低于对照组25.40%(16/63),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组患儿首次进食时间、输尿管拔除时间、首次下床时间、住院时间均短于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。干预后,两组患者自我焦虑量表(SAS)和自我抑郁量表(SDS)得分均下降(P<0.05),观察组SAS和SDS得分均低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组患者的CRF量表生理、情绪、认知疲劳评分均降低(P<0.05),且观察组评分低于对照组(P<0.05)。干预后,两组患者生活质量量表的身体、认知、情感、社会功能及整体健康状况得分均升高(P<0.05),观察组患者的身体、情感、社会功能及整体健康状况得分均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论胶质瘤患者术后护理采用八步流程结合四轨交叉检查质量控制,可减少不良护理事件及并发症的发生,缓解患者的负面情绪,改善CRF,提高患者的生活质量。关键词:神经胶质瘤;神经外科;术后并发症;癌症相关疲劳;生活质量;八步过程;四轨交叉检查质量控制
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37482
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
The role of grid management in community epidemic prevention and control and its implication to community health service systems Application of narrative nursing in a COVID-19 patient with acute stress disorder Influence of COVID-19 knowledge, attitude on protective behavior among clinical nurses Effects of nursing based on PRECEDE-PROCEED in community patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus Effects of nurse as standardized patient in clinical apprenticeship and objective structured clinical examination of psychiatric nursing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1