摘要
目的探讨疼痛管理对急诊外伤患者的影响，为其应用提供可参考依据。方法共纳人2012年6月—2013年6月175例急诊外伤患者作为研究对象，采用随机数字法分为管理组85例与对照组90例。管理组患者给予疼痛教育、心理护理等规范化疼痛管理干预措施，对照组给予常规疼痛治疗及护理。采用简化～麦吉尔疼痛问卷表（SF—MPQ）对两组患者进行疼痛评估，采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）对两组患者焦虑状况进行评估。结果随着患者损伤程度的增加，疼痛得分PRI、PPI、VAS及HAMA得分随之增加，差异有统计学意义（F分别为3．576，4．798，4．342，5．967；P〈0．05）。两组外伤后3d患者PRI、PPI、VAS及HANA得分明显高于外伤后24h，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），对照组患者得分高于管理组，但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；外伤后7dPRI、PPI、VAS及HAMA得分开始下降，管理组得分分别为（4．33±1．82），（2．88±1．42），（3．94±1．84），（10．16±2．78）分，明显低于对照组的（5．73±1．88），（3．38±1．36），（4．42±1．87），（12．36±3．17）分，差异有统计学意义（t分别为5．097，4．534，4．043，3．937；P〈0．05）；外伤后14d得分PRI、PPI、VAS及HAMA得分下降更明显，管理组得分分别为（2．19±1．00），（1．32±0．85），（2．54±0．96），（5．44±2．84）分，明显低于对照组的（3．36-e1．02），（2．13±1．18），（3．18±1．36），（6．47±2．48）分，差异有统计学意义（t分别为4．937，4．454，4．234，4．634；P〈0．05）。患者疼痛得分PRI、PPI、VAS及HAMA得分存在正相关关系，差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论对急诊外伤患者进行规范化的疼痛管理可以有效缓解患者疼痛的症状，同时减少患者焦虑等不良情绪的影响，整个过程中护理人员发挥重要的作用。
Objective To discuss the effect of pain management on patients with emergency trauma, so as to provide reference for its application. Methods A total of 175 patients with emergency trauma from June 2012 to June 2013 were chosen and randomly divided into the management group （85 cases） and the control group （90 cases）. The management group received intervention measures on pain management including pain education, psychological nursing, while the control group was given conventional treatment and care. SF-MPQ was used to evaluate patients＇ pain in both groups, Hamilton Anxiety Scale （HAMA） were used to evaluate the anxiety status of patients of two groups. Results With the increase of damage degree, pain score PRI, PPI, VAS and HAMA scores increased, and the differences were statistically significant （F = 3. 576,4. 798,4. 342, 5. 967, respectively; P 〈 0.05 ）. Pain score PRI, PPI, VAS and HAMA scores in 3 d after trauma were higher than those in 24 h after trauma in both groups, and the differences were statistically significant （ P 〈 0.05）. The scores in the control group were higher than those in management group, but the difference was not statistically significant （P 〉0.05）. The scores began to decline 7d after trauma. The scores were respectively （4.33± 1.82）, （2.88 ±1.42）, （3.94 ± 1.84）, （ 10. 16 ±2.78 ） in management group and （5.73 ±1.88 ）, （3.38 ±1.36）, （4.42 ± 1.87 ）, （ 12.36 ± 3. 17 ） in the control group, with statistically significant differences （t = 5. 097,4. 534,4. 043,3. 937, respectively; P 〈 0.05）. 14d after trauma, the scores were （2. 19 ± 1.00）, （ 1.32 ± 0.85 ）, （2.54 ±0.96）, （5.44 ± 2.84） in the management group and （ 3.36 ± 1.02）, （2.13 ± 1.18 ）, （3.18 ± 1.36）, （6.47 ± 2.48） in the control group, with statistically significant differences （ t =4.937, 4. 454, 4. 234,4. 634, respectively; P 〈 0.05 ）. There was positive correlation between pain score PRI, PPI, VAS and HAMA scores, with statistically significant differences （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusions Pain management for patients with emergency trauma can effectively alleviate their symptoms and reduce the influence of anxiety, during which the nursing staff plays an important role.
出处
《中华现代护理杂志》
2014年第14期1667-1671,共5页
Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
