| Literature DB >> 35126898 |
Ping Huang1, Li Zhu1, Qi Wu1, Weishu Hu2.
Abstract
With the development of science and technology of the times, the level of medical care is constantly improving. For patients transferred from ICU, the intelligent processor 3D quality model technology has gradually played an important role in clinical treatment and has become a new type of attention. In order to understand the implementation status of transitional care and the feelings of transitional care for patients transferred from ICU and understand the views of transitional care-related department doctors on transitional patient care and the role that the intelligent processor three-dimensional quality model can play, this article passed a review of the city ICU transferred patients from a hospital that conducted related investigations, reviewed related literature, conducted interviews with professionals, etc., collected relevant information, constructed case templates, and created a clinical research model using comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study found that, after treatment, patients transferred from the ICU based on the intelligent processor's three-dimensional quality model have higher physical activity than patients treated by other methods, the ratio is more than 20%, and the postoperative recovery efficiency of patients is higher than 15% and more. This shows that the three-dimensional quality model based on the intelligent processor can improve the important role in the transition period of patients transferred from ICU.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35126898 PMCID: PMC8808119 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1455830
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1The hazards of immobilization in critically ill patients.
Figure 2Intelligent processor 3D quality model technology composition.
Comparison of data between groups of patients.
| Control group | Observation group | Plaque formation group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male/female (number of cases) | 13/9 | 17/19 | 18/12 |
| Age | 47.25 ± 11.72 | 52.15 ± 11.35 | 51.93 ± 11.23 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.17 ± 1.63 | 25.06 ± 1.53 | 26.12 ± 1.57 |
| Blood sugar (mmol/L) | 5.51 ± 1.03 | 5.47 ± 1.12 | 5.33 ± 1.24 |
| Uric acid (umol/L) | 323.23 ± 81.42 | 329.02 ± 82.55 | 340.91 ± 92.16 |
| Creatinine (umol/L) | 78.35 ± 21.33 | 79.13 ± 23.27 | 79.98 ± 31.16 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 5.63 ± 0.88 | 5.72 ± 0.91 | 5.68 ± 1.21 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 3.67 ± 0.46 | 2.91 ± 0.84 | 2.81 ± 0.52 |
| HDL (mmol/L) | 2.33 ± 0.17 | 2.28 ± 0.12 | 2.24 ± 0.14 |
| LDL (mmol/L) | 4.04 ± 0.70 | 3.91 ± 0.21 | 4.24 ± 0.69 |
Correlation results of each indicator.
| BMI | SBP | DBP | White blood cell count | hsCRP | HDL | IMT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation coefficient | −0.238 | −0.425 | −0.211 | −0.272 | −0.208 | 0.325 | −0.832 |
|
| 0.014 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.032 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
Comparison of time-domain indicators of heart rate variability and average heart rate between groups of patients.
| Project | Control group | Observation group | Plaque formation group |
|---|---|---|---|
| SDNN (ms) | 131.51 ± 8.48 | 98.63 ± 4.24 | 55.25 ± 6.64 |
| SDANN (ms) | 130.63 ± 8.29 | 95.25 ± 5.02 | 49.01 ± 3.99 |
| rMSSD (ms) | 31.89 ± 3.72 | 14.22 ± 1.79 | 4.11 ± 0.59 |
| pNN50 (%) | 11.96 ± 0.88 | 8.02 ± 0.38 | 5.46 ± 0.27 |
| 24hmHR (times/min) | 69.10 ± 1.20 | 78.56 ± 1.45 | 89.48 ± 1.82 |
Blood pressure variability between patients.
| Project | Control group | Observation group | Plaque formation group |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24hSSD (mmHg) | 10.22 ± 3.01 | 13.88 ± 3.56 | 16.40 ± 3.23 |
| 24hDSD (mmHg) | 8.32 ± 3.99 | 10.19 ± 3.45 | 13.78 ± 3.09 |
| dSSD (mmHg) | 10.24 ± 2.36 | 13.35 ± 2.55 | 15.98 ± 2.80 |
| dDSD (mmHg) | 9.41 ± 3.48 | 11.82 ± 3.76 | 13.81 ± 3.99 |
| nSSD (mmHg) | 9.96 ± 4.12 | 12.13 ± 4.09 | 14.18 ± 4.18 |
| nDSD (mmHg) | 8.01 ± 3.31 | 10.36 ± 3.26 | 11.66 ± 3.48 |
Figure 3Number of people treated with pressure ulcers by different methods.
Figure 4Changes before and after patient transfer from ICU.
Figure 5Comparison of patient exercise frequency.
Figure 6Before and after patient treatment.
Figure 7Comparison of patients' prognosis and rehabilitation.