| Literature DB >> 35935299 |
Qingmei Yi1, Xi Li1, Tingting Chen1, Zhiguo Li1, Xiaohong Cao1, Wei Gu1.
Abstract
Our purpose of this study was to analyze the application value of the information-based nursing quality evaluation model in improving the daily work quality of the PICC room in the outpatient department. From January 2020 to December 2020, 465 patients who received PICC treatment were selected as the research objects and divided into the observation group (265 cases, July 2020-December 2020, information-based nursing quality evaluation model after implementation) and the control group (200 cases, January 2020-June 2020, before the implementation of the information-based nursing quality assessment model). Compared with the control group, the children and their families in the observation group had higher PICC health knowledge and compliance scores, longer mean time for catheter placement, lower overall complication rate, and higher overall satisfaction rate after the intervention. The information-based nursing quality evaluation model can improve the daily work quality of the PICC room in the outpatient clinic, improve the clinical efficacy of PICC in patients, and reduce the incidence of complications such as catheter shedding. It is worthy of clinical application.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35935299 PMCID: PMC9334092 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8187644
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Comparison of age and gender composition in the control group (x̅ ± s, n).
| Group | Number of subjects | Age range (months) | Mean age | Gender composition | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | ||||
| Observation group | 265 | 2–180 | 9.43 ± 2.11 | 161 (60.75%) | 104 (39.25%) |
| Control group | 200 | 3–168 | 9.48 ± 2.03 | 117 (58.5%) | 83 (41.5%) |
| Χ2/ | — | — | 0.257 | 0.241 | 0.241 |
|
| — | — | 0.797 | 0.623 | 0.623 |
Comparison of diagnosis and treatment of PICC after intervention in the control group (x̅ ± s).
| Group | Number of subjects | PICC health knowledge score (points) | Compliance score (points) | Mean catheter dwell time (d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 265 | 87.03 ± 8.43 | 53.77 ± 6.19 | 158.43 ± 28.32 |
|
| ||||
| Control group | 200 | 80.01 ± 6.12 | 40.83 ± 5.98 | 122.94 ± 25.98 |
|
| — | 9.960 | 22.645 | 13.859 |
|
| — | 0.001 | 0.001 | 1.1 |
Comparison of complications after intervention in control group (n, (%)).
| Group | Number of subjects | Catheter infection | Catheter jams or falls off | Phlebitis peripheral | Total occurrence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 265 | 1 (0.38%) | 2 (0.75%) | 1 (0.38%) | 4 (1.51%) |
| Control group | 200 | 4 (2%) | 8 (4%) | 7 (3.5%) | 19 (9.5%) |
| Χ2 | — | 2.821 | 5.705 | 6.573 | 15.479 |
|
| — | 0.093 | 0.017 | 0.010 | 1.1 |
Comparison of intervention satisfaction rate in control group (n, (%)).
| Group | Number of subjects | Very satisfied | Satisfied | Unsatisfactory | Overall satisfaction rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 265 | 132 (49.81%) | 130 (49.06%) | 3 (1.13%) | 232 (98.87%) |
| Control group | 200 | 94 (47%) | 101 (50.5%) | 5 (2.5%) | 195 (97.5%) |
| Χ2 | — | 0.361 | 0.095 | 1.261 | 15.046 |
|
| — | 0.548 | 0.758 | 0.261 | 0.001 |