Application of therapeutic communication nursing intervention in emergency infusion patients
10.3760/cma.j.cn211501-20200320-01298
- VernacularTitle:治疗性沟通护理干预在急诊输液患者中应用的效果分析
- Author:
Lingling GE
;
Weiwen HAO
;
Juan LI
;
Yun CAO
;
Yanxia MIAO
- From:
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing
2021;37(13):996-1002
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the effect of therapeutic communication on infusion safety, disease uncertainty, coping styles, anxiety and depression in patients with emergency infusion.Methods:A total of 126 patients treated with infusion patients in emergency department in Jiangsu Provincial People's Hospital, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from July 2019 to December 2019 were selected and divided into two groups by random digits table method with 63 cases in each group. Patients in the control group received routine nursing, and patients in the intervention group received therapeutic communication nursing intervention on this basis. The incidence of adverse events of infusion during the intervention of the two groups of patients was observed. The disease uncertainty, coping styles, anxiety and depression were evaluated by Mishel's Uncertainty in Illness Scale (MUIS), Medical Coping Mode Questionnaire (MCMQ), Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-rating Depressive Scale (SDS) before and after intervention.Results:The final collection of 109 patients with complete questionnaire, the recovery rate was 86.51% (109/126), including 55 cases in the intervention group, 54 cases in the control group. The incidence of adverse events of infusion was 16.36%(9/55) in the intervention group and 29.63%(16/54) in the control group, and there was significant difference( χ2 value was 5.057, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the score of MUIS, MCMQ, SAS, SDS before the intervention between the two groups ( P>0.05). After the intervention, the uncertainty, unpredictability, lack of information and complexity dimension of the intervention group patients' MUIS scores were respectively (17.76 ± 2.49), (12.03 ± 2.51), (11.82 ± 2.12), (11.74 ± 2.24), which were lower than those in the control group (24.72 ± 2.94), (16.31 ± 2.27), (16.13 ± 2.51), (15.39 ± 2.31), the differences were significant( t values were -13.346- -8.375, P<0.05). The confront score of the intervention group patients' MCMQ was (19.13 ± 2.62) higher than that in the control group(13.79 ± 1.96), the avoidance and yield scores were respectively (8.71 ± 1.34), (9.81 ± 1.17), which were lower than those in the control group (14.57 ± 1.93), (15.12 ± 1.86), the differences were significant( t values were 12.031, -18.441, -17.875, P<0.05). The scores of SAS and SDS in the intervention group were (29.43 ± 3.62), (27.67 ± 3.11) respectively, which were lower than those in the control group (37.44 ± 5.31), (40.12 ± 4.92), the differences were significant( t values were -9.216, -15.821, P<0.05). Conclusions:Therapeutic communication can reduce the risk of emergency infusion, reduce the uncertainty of patients to the disease, improve patients' countermeasures to the disease, relieve patients' anxiety and depression, and improve the nursing quality of emergency infusion patients.
