| Literature DB >> 35785053 |
Yaer Shi1, Jianzhong Sang1, Yimao Sang1.
Abstract
This research sets out to elucidate the influence of comprehensive nursing intervention (CNI) on vital signs (VSs) and negative emotions (NEs) of patients with gastrointestinal polyps treated by digestive endoscopy. To address this, from January 2020 to February 2021, 92 cases of gastrointestinal polyps treated by digestive endoscopy in the Yuyao People's Hospital of Zhejiang Province were partitioned into two different groups: the control group (CG; n = 46) intervened by routine nursing intervention, and the research group (RG; n = 46) treated by CNI based on routine care. The VSs, NEs, time of first postoperative exhaust and defecation, early food intake, length of stay (LOS), quality of life (QOL), nursing satisfaction, and the incidence of postoperative complications were compared between groups. When entering the operating room, elevated systolic/diastolic (SBP/DBP) was observed in CG compared with RG (P < 0.05) while there was no statistical difference in SBP/DBP in RG before intervention and when entering the operating room (P > 0.05). Statistically, less time of first exhaust and defecation as well as LOS and early food intake were observed in RG (P < 0.05). The HAMA and HAMD scores declined in both arms postintervention, and the decrease was more obvious in RG (P < 0.05). After intervention, the scores of various domains of GQOLI-74 elevated in both arms, and the increase was more obvious in RG (P < 0.05). RG also showed a lower total complication rate and a higher degree of nursing satisfaction than CG (P < 0.05). CNI for patients with gastrointestinal polyps treated by digestive endoscopy can obviously relieve their anxiety and depression, with stable VSs, short LOS, and low incidence of complications.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35785053 PMCID: PMC9249447 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5931588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Colon polyp.
Figure 2Dissection of colonic adenoma.
General information matching of these groups (n, ).
| Indicators | Research group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender ( | 0.040 | 0.824 | ||
| Male | 24 | 25 | ||
| Female | 22 | 21 | ||
|
| ||||
| Age (years old) | 41.2 ± 3.2 | 40.9 ± 3.5 | 0.429 | 0.669 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.15 ± 2.26 | 21.24 ± 2.23 | 0.192 | 0.848 |
|
| ||||
| Type of disease ( | 0.180 | 0.672 | ||
| Intestinal polyp | 18 | 20 | ||
| Gastric polyp | 28 | 26 | ||
Note. χ2: Chi-square test statistics; t: paired test statistics.
Matching of the vital signs before & after the intervention (mmHg).
| Groups | Time | SBP | DBP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research group ( | Before intervention | 120.25 ± 8.24 | 79.88 ± 5.41 |
| When entering the operating room | 121.33 ± 8.65# | 79.91 ± 5.34# | |
|
| |||
| Control group ( | Before intervention | 121.38 ± 8.21 | 79.85 ± 5.36 |
| When entering the operating room | 135.69 ± 7.04 | 89.23 ± 5.09 | |
Note. t-test was used; indicates P < 0.05 compared with that before intervention; # indicates P < 0.05 compared with the control group.
Assessment of the frequency of complications between these groups d.
| Groups | Time of the first postoperative exhaust | Time of the first postoperative defecation | Early food intake | Length of stay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research group ( | 2.3 ± 0.8 | 3.1 ± 0.9 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 6.8 ± 0.4 |
| Control group ( | 3.7 ± 0.6 | 4.9 ± 0.5 | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 7.9 ± 0.9 |
|
| 9.496 | 11.858 | 11.826 | 7.575 |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Note. t-test was used; # indicates P < 0.05 compared with the control group.
Figure 3Comparison of HAMA and HAMD scores between the two groups before and after the intervention. Note: t-test was used; ∗indicates P < 0.05 associated with that before intervention; # designates P < 0.05 associated with the control group.
Comparison of GQOLI-74 scores between the two groups before and after intervention points.
| Groups | Time | Social functioning | Physical functioning | Psychological functioning | Material life state |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research group ( | Before intervention | 72.63 ± 4.28 | 75.42 ± 5.21 | 70.43 ± 5.17 | 67.49 ± 5.31 |
| After intervention | 83.59 ± 5.33 | 85.56 ± 6.47 | 78.99 ± 5.38 | 77.18 ± 4.27 | |
|
| |||||
| Control group ( | Before intervention | 73.62 ± 5.01 | 76.01 ± 6.02 | 71.12 ± 5.20 | 68.97 ± 5.30 |
| After intervention | 79.74 ± 6.21 | 82.27 ± 5.98 | 75.37 ± 6.06 | 72.53 ± 4.19 | |
Note. t-test was used; designates P < 0.05 matched with that before intervention; # specifies P < 0.05 likened with the control group.
Figure 4Incidence of complications in the control group.
Figure 5Incidence of complications in the research group.
Figure 6Comparison of patient satisfaction between two groups. Chi-square test was used; # indicates P < 0.05 compared with the control group.