Objective:To explore the effectiveness of interprofessional cooperative simulation in teaching emergency care for shock patients among intensive care unit (ICU) undergraduate nursing students.Methods:An interprofessional cooperative simulation-based teaching faculty team was established for ICU undergraduate nursing students, and a shock case library was developed. Using convenience sampling, 32 ICU undergraduate nursing students in 2022 were selected as the control group and received conventional simulation-based teaching, with students rotating through roles as nurses, standardized patients, doctors, and family members. In the experimental group, 34 ICU undergraduate nursing students in 2023 and 24 ICU clinical medicine interns were recruited to act as doctors for interprofessional cooperative simulation-based teaching. Each group was divided into subgroups, with each subgroup consisting of 4-5 nursing students. One group completed simulation-based training per month for a total of 8 sessions, with each session lasting 3 hours. The teaching adopted the on-site "tidal ward" in situ simulation, and the scenarios included patient history collection and health assessment, shock emergency care, nursing evaluation, and health education. The differences between the two groups of nursing students were compared in terms of ICU exit theoretical assessment score, objective structured clinical examination skill assessment score, and satisfaction with simulation-based teaching. SPSS 22.0 was used for independent samples t test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results:The experimental group achieved significantly higher scores in theoretical assessment (84.65±8.06), total score of satisfaction with simulation-based teaching (101.00±5.13), and clinical learning and multiprofessional team dimensions (47.32±3.35) compared to the control group ( P<0.001). The experimental group achieved higher scores in objective structured clinical examination skill assessment (81.40±7.22), guiding feedback and reflection (37.50±3.04), and judgmental thinking and clinical reasoning (16.00±2.03) compared to the control group, though the differences were not significant ( P=0.977, 0.668, and 0.636). Conclusions:Interprofessional cooperative simulation enhances the shock patient emergency care abilities and satisfaction with simulation-based teaching for undergraduate nursing students.

Objective:To explore the effectiveness of interprofessional cooperative simulation in teaching emergency care for shock patients among intensive care unit (ICU) undergraduate nursing students.Methods:An interprofessional cooperative simulation-based teaching faculty team was established for ICU undergraduate nursing students, and a shock case library was developed. Using convenience sampling, 32 ICU undergraduate nursing students in 2022 were selected as the control group and received conventional simulation-based teaching, with students rotating through roles as nurses, standardized patients, doctors, and family members. In the experimental group, 34 ICU undergraduate nursing students in 2023 and 24 ICU clinical medicine interns were recruited to act as doctors for interprofessional cooperative simulation-based teaching. Each group was divided into subgroups, with each subgroup consisting of 4-5 nursing students. One group completed simulation-based training per month for a total of 8 sessions, with each session lasting 3 hours. The teaching adopted the on-site "tidal ward" in situ simulation, and the scenarios included patient history collection and health assessment, shock emergency care, nursing evaluation, and health education. The differences between the two groups of nursing students were compared in terms of ICU exit theoretical assessment score, objective structured clinical examination skill assessment score, and satisfaction with simulation-based teaching. SPSS 22.0 was used for independent samples t test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results:The experimental group achieved significantly higher scores in theoretical assessment (84.65±8.06), total score of satisfaction with simulation-based teaching (101.00±5.13), and clinical learning and multiprofessional team dimensions (47.32±3.35) compared to the control group ( P<0.001). The experimental group achieved higher scores in objective structured clinical examination skill assessment (81.40±7.22), guiding feedback and reflection (37.50±3.04), and judgmental thinking and clinical reasoning (16.00±2.03) compared to the control group, though the differences were not significant ( P=0.977, 0.668, and 0.636). Conclusions:Interprofessional cooperative simulation enhances the shock patient emergency care abilities and satisfaction with simulation-based teaching for undergraduate nursing students.

Objective:To study the size difference of bilateral axillary vein in adults, and to provide basis for the design of interventional surgical treatment.Methods:From December 2017 to December 2018, 145 inpatients (117 cases of hypertension, 28 cases of heart failure) and 87 healthy volunteers were selected from the Second People's Hospital of Lianyungang as study objects.The size of bilateral axillary vein of each study object was measured and the difference was statistically analyzed.Results:Among the 232 subjects, the dominant hand was the right hand, accounting for 95.7% (222/232). There were no statistically significant differences in the size of left and right axillary veins (all P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the other indicators except age between the two groups (all P>0.05). The diameter of axillary vein was (0.67±0.15)cm in male and (0.53±0.13)cm in female, the difference is statistically significant( P=0.000). In the healthy control group, the dominant, non-dominant and large cross-sectional areas were (0.54±0.17)mm 2, (0.54±0.15)mm 2, (0.60±0.16)mm 2, respectively, which in the hypertension group were (0.55±0.14)mm 2, (0.54±0.14)mm 2, (0.59±0.14)mm 2, respectively, which in the heart failure group were (0.54±0.16)mm 2, (0.56±0.19)mm 2, (0.59±0.1)mm 2, respectively, there were no statistically significant differences among the three groups (all P>0.05). Conclusion:The difference is not obvious in the size of bilateral axillary vein, and there is no correlation between the size of bilateral axillary vein and dominant hand.The size of axillary vein in adults of different genders is different, and the size of axillary vein can be estimated by the gender of subjects, but not by the dominant hand or other data.

OBJECTIVETo detect serum content of cofilin protein in patients with lung cancer and investigate its clinical value.

METHODSThe serum content of cofilin protein was detected in 30 cases of lung cancer and 30 healthy control subjects using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTSThe mean serum content of cofilin protein was 0.485∓0.465 ng/ml in patients with lung cancer and 0.203∓0.102 ng/ml in the control subjects, showing a significant difference between them (P<0.05). The content of cofilin protein in patients with stage III and IV lung cancer 0.744∓0.584 ng/ml, significantly higher than that in stage II patients (0.257∓0.126 ng/ml).

CONCLUSIONSerum cofilin protein is elevated in patients with lung cancer, especially in cases in advanced stages, suggesting its relation with lung cancer staging.

Actin Depolymerizing Factors ; blood ; Adenocarcinoma ; blood ; diagnosis ; pathology ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell ; blood ; diagnosis ; pathology ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay ; Female ; Humans ; Lung Neoplasms ; blood ; diagnosis ; pathology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Staging

Objective To detect serum content of cofilin protein in patients with lung cancer and investigate its clinical value. Methods The serum content of cofilin protein was detected in 30 cases of lung cancer and 30 healthy control subjects using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results The mean serum content of cofilin protein was 0.485 ± 0.465 ng/ml in patients with lung cancer and 0.203 ± 0.102 ng/ml in the control subjects, showing a significant difference between them (P<0.05). The content of cofilin protein in patients with stage III and IV lung cancer 0.744±0.584 ng/ml, significantly higher than that in stage II patients (0.257±0.126 ng/ml). Conclusion Serum cofilin protein is elevated in patients with lung cancer, especially in cases in advanced stages, suggesting its relation with lung cancer staging.

Objective To detect serum content of cofilin protein in patients with lung cancer and investigate its clinical value. Methods The serum content of cofilin protein was detected in 30 cases of lung cancer and 30 healthy control subjects using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results The mean serum content of cofilin protein was 0.485 ± 0.465 ng/ml in patients with lung cancer and 0.203 ± 0.102 ng/ml in the control subjects, showing a significant difference between them (P<0.05). The content of cofilin protein in patients with stage III and IV lung cancer 0.744±0.584 ng/ml, significantly higher than that in stage II patients (0.257±0.126 ng/ml). Conclusion Serum cofilin protein is elevated in patients with lung cancer, especially in cases in advanced stages, suggesting its relation with lung cancer staging.

Objective To summarize the clinical experience of thoracic injury.Methods Analyze 778 cases of thoracic injury,including soft tissue injury,rib fracture,hemothorax and pneumothorax,pulmonary contusion,cardiovascular injury,et al.The causes of the injury including traffic accident,injury suffered from the job and dispute,et al.Results 774 cases were cured among all the 778 cases with the recovery rate of 99.35％.There were 5 cases died with the death rate of 0.65％,including 1 case of heart rupture,1 case of large vessle rupture,2 cases of brain combining injury,1 case of spleen combining injury.Conclusion Thoracic injury arise new characteristic in recent years.The main causes of the injury are traffic accident,injury suffered form the job and dispute.Most cases may be cured by rapid treatment.The main causes of death are haemorrage shock due to cardiovascular or spleen rupture and combination of severe brain injury.