| Literature DB >> 35399836 |
Yehua Dai1, Changneng Peng2, Pan Li1.
Abstract
In order to explore the observation and nursing of adverse reactions in severe patients with enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, a family nursing service model was proposed in patients with enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. 150 patients who underwent enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in a hospital were selected as the research objects. The patients were divided into two groups by random number table method. 75 patients in the control group received routine nursing intervention and 75 patients in the observation group received family nursing service intervention. The anxiety score, depression score, examination time, one-time success rate, comfort score, incidence of adverse reactions, excellent image quality rate and nursing satisfaction were compared between the two groups. The results showed that the anxiety score and depression score of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P < 0.05), the examination time of the observation group was significantly shorter than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the comfort score and one-time success rate of the observation group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05), the excellent and good image quality rate (95.00%) and nursing satisfaction (97.22%) were significantly higher than those in the control group (83.00%, 86.56%). This shows that the application effect of family nursing service mode in magnetic resonance enhanced scanning is remarkable. Therefore, the use of family care mode in MRI patient examination can effectively reduce patients' anxiety and depression scores, shorten examination time, reduce adverse reactions, improve the success rate of one-time examination, improve patients' comfort during examination and patients' evaluation of nursing services. The effect is ideal and worthy of clinical research and promotion.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35399836 PMCID: PMC8986402 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5319179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Image reconstruction system and method technology in magnetic resonance imaging.
Self rating Anxiety Scale (SAS)—standard.
| Evaluation items | No or little | A small part of the time | Quite a lot of time | All time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I feel more nervous and anxious than usual | ||||
| 2. I feel worried and scared for no reason | ||||
| 3. I tend to get upset or panic | ||||
| 4. I think I may be going crazy | ||||
| 5. I feel that everything is going well and no bad luck will happen | ||||
| 6. My limbs stir and tremble | ||||
| 7. I am troubled by headache, neck pain and back pain | ||||
| 8. I feel weak and tired easily | ||||
| 9. I feel calm and can sit down quietly | ||||
| 10. I Feel my heart beating fast |
Evaluation of self rating Depression Scale (SDS).
| Problem | No or very little | A small part of the time | Quite a lot of time | All time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I feel depressed and depressed | ||||
| 2. I think the morning is the best of the day | ||||
| I Cry or want to cry | ||||
| 4. I do not sleep well at night | ||||
| 5. I eat as much as I used to | ||||
| 6. I feel as happy as ever when I contact the opposite sex | ||||
| 7. I find my weight is losing | ||||
| 8. I have constipation | ||||
| 9. My heart beats faster than usual | ||||
| 10. I Feel tired for no reason |
Comparison of anxiety and depression scores between the two groups
| Group | Number of cases | Time | Anxiety score | Depression score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 75 | Before nursing | 52.81 ± 5.42 | 51.62 ± 5.61 |
| After nursing | 45.58 ± 3.16 | 45.14 ± 4.03 | ||
| T Value | 6.513 | 5.576 | ||
| P | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
|
| ||||
| Observation group | 75 | Before nursing | 52.53 ± 6.67 | 51.38 ± 5.54 |
| After nursing | 41.47 ± 2.81 | 40.48 ± 3.56 | ||
| T Value | 11.120 | 10.752 | ||
| P | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| T1 value | 0.155 | 0.110 | ||
| P | 0.758 | 0.715 | ||
| T2 value | 5.131 | 5.040 | ||
| P | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
Note. T1 and P1 are the comparison between groups before nursing; T2 and P2 are the comparison between the groups after nursing.
Comparison of examination time and comfort scores between the two groups.
| Group | Number of cases | Inspection time min | Comfort score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 75 | 20.364.07 | 74.7810.45 |
| Observation group | 75 | 16.473.13 | 86.8312.06 |
| T Value | 6.366 | -6.366 | |
| P | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Comparison of primary success rate and incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups.
| Group | Number of cases | One time successful cases (%) | Dizzy | Adverse reactions (cases) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nausea and vomiting | Skin flushing | Rash | Total occurrence | ||||
| Control group | 75 | 67(90.56) | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 12 |
| Observation group | 75 | 74(100.00) | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| X2 value | 7.232 | 5.263 | |||||
| P | <0.05 | ||||||
Comparison of image quality excellence rate.
| Group | Number of cases | Excellent example | Good example | Poor example | Excellent rate% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 75 | 26 | 35 | 11 | 83 |
| Observation group | 75 | 32 | 38 | 2 | 95 |
Note. The excellent and good rate of the two groups was 6.000, P < 0.05.
Figure 2Comparison of inspection quality of two groups.
Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups.
| Group | Number of cases | Very satisfied example | More satisfactory cases | Dissatisfaction example | Nursing satisfaction% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 75 | 29 | 34 | 10 | 86.56 |
| Observation group | 75 | 33 | 38 | 1 | 97.22 |
Note. The comparison of satisfaction between the two groups, x2 = 5.797, P < 0.05.
Figure 3Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups.