标准抽吸与常规抽吸对重症监护病房患者生命体征、动脉血氧饱和度及疼痛程度的影响比较

Keykha Aliakbar, Askari Hasan, Abbaszadeh Abbas, E. Hasan, Khodadadi Hoseini Bibi Mahdieh, Borhani Fariba
{"title":"标准抽吸与常规抽吸对重症监护病房患者生命体征、动脉血氧饱和度及疼痛程度的影响比较","authors":"Keykha Aliakbar, Askari Hasan, Abbaszadeh Abbas, E. Hasan, Khodadadi Hoseini Bibi Mahdieh, Borhani Fariba","doi":"10.17795/CCN-6619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: One of the highly important duties at the intensive care units (ICUs) for maintaining airway and improving ventilation and oxygenation is suctioning; however, it must be done in a way so that, in addition to the mentioned advantages, it can have the least complications for the patient. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of two standard and routine suctioning methods on vital signs, arterial blood oxygen saturation and pain level of patients hospitalized at the ICU. Materials andMethods: The present quasi-experimental study was conducted during year 2012 on 80 patients under mechanical ventilation hospitalized at ICUs of Zahedan city. Patients were selected purposively and were randomly divided to two groups. In the first group, suctioning was done based on the standard method recommended by the American association for respiratory care (AARC) and in the second group; it was conducted based on routine nursing care. The data was collected by means of Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and bedside monitoring of the patients was done before and at one, five, ten and fifteen minutes after suctioning. Results: The results showed that suctioning based on the routine method leads to more pain and this pain continues for 10 minutes after suctioning and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups at one and five minutes (P = 0.000, P = 0.000). The vital signs in both groups increased after suctioning and these changes were more in the second group, however, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Also, the level of arterial blood oxygen saturation increased after suctioning in both groups, but these changes were more in group 1 and there was a significant difference between the measurements at one, five, ten and fifteen minutes after suctioning and before suctioning (P = 0.00, P = 0.000, P = 0.000); yet in the second group, no significant difference was observed in none of the times (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The results of the present study showed that suctioning in the standard method brings about less pain for the patients. It results fewer changes in vital signs and also leads to increased arterial blood oxygen saturation. Thus, it should be included in the work program of the nurses through adequate training.","PeriodicalId":91413,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian journal of critical care nursing","volume":"25 1","pages":"0-0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Effects of Standard Suction and Routine Methods on Vital Signs, Arterial Blood Oxygen Saturation and Pain Level of Patients Hospitalized at the Intensive Care Unit\",\"authors\":\"Keykha Aliakbar, Askari Hasan, Abbaszadeh Abbas, E. Hasan, Khodadadi Hoseini Bibi Mahdieh, Borhani Fariba\",\"doi\":\"10.17795/CCN-6619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: One of the highly important duties at the intensive care units (ICUs) for maintaining airway and improving ventilation and oxygenation is suctioning; however, it must be done in a way so that, in addition to the mentioned advantages, it can have the least complications for the patient. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of two standard and routine suctioning methods on vital signs, arterial blood oxygen saturation and pain level of patients hospitalized at the ICU. Materials andMethods: The present quasi-experimental study was conducted during year 2012 on 80 patients under mechanical ventilation hospitalized at ICUs of Zahedan city. Patients were selected purposively and were randomly divided to two groups. In the first group, suctioning was done based on the standard method recommended by the American association for respiratory care (AARC) and in the second group; it was conducted based on routine nursing care. The data was collected by means of Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and bedside monitoring of the patients was done before and at one, five, ten and fifteen minutes after suctioning. Results: The results showed that suctioning based on the routine method leads to more pain and this pain continues for 10 minutes after suctioning and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups at one and five minutes (P = 0.000, P = 0.000). The vital signs in both groups increased after suctioning and these changes were more in the second group, however, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Also, the level of arterial blood oxygen saturation increased after suctioning in both groups, but these changes were more in group 1 and there was a significant difference between the measurements at one, five, ten and fifteen minutes after suctioning and before suctioning (P = 0.00, P = 0.000, P = 0.000); yet in the second group, no significant difference was observed in none of the times (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The results of the present study showed that suctioning in the standard method brings about less pain for the patients. It results fewer changes in vital signs and also leads to increased arterial blood oxygen saturation. Thus, it should be included in the work program of the nurses through adequate training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91413,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Canadian journal of critical care nursing\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0-0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Canadian journal of critical care nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17795/CCN-6619\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian journal of critical care nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17795/CCN-6619","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:在重症监护病房(icu)维持气道和改善通气和氧合的一个非常重要的职责是吸引;然而,除了上述优点外,它必须以一种对患者并发症最少的方式进行。目的:比较标准和常规两种吸痰方法对ICU住院患者生命体征、动脉血氧饱和度及疼痛程度的影响。材料与方法:选取2012年扎黑丹市icu机械通气住院患者80例为准实验研究对象。有目的地选择患者,随机分为两组。第一组按照美国呼吸护理协会(AARC)推荐的标准方法进行吸痰;在常规护理的基础上进行。采用行为疼痛量表(BPS)收集数据,并于抽吸前、抽吸后1分钟、5分钟、10分钟和15分钟对患者进行床边监测。结果:结果显示,在常规方法吸痰的基础上,疼痛加重,且吸痰后疼痛持续10分钟,两组在吸痰1分钟和5分钟时差异有统计学意义(P = 0.000, P = 0.000)。两组患者吸痰后生命体征均明显增高,但两组间差异无统计学意义。两组动脉血氧饱和度均在抽吸后升高,但以1组变化更大,且抽吸后1、5、10、15 min与抽吸前比较差异有统计学意义(P = 0.00, P = 0.000, P = 0.000);而第二组两组间差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:本研究结果表明,采用标准方法进行抽吸可减轻患者的疼痛。它对生命体征的影响较小,也会导致动脉血氧饱和度升高。因此,应通过适当的培训将其纳入护士的工作计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Effects of Standard Suction and Routine Methods on Vital Signs, Arterial Blood Oxygen Saturation and Pain Level of Patients Hospitalized at the Intensive Care Unit
Background: One of the highly important duties at the intensive care units (ICUs) for maintaining airway and improving ventilation and oxygenation is suctioning; however, it must be done in a way so that, in addition to the mentioned advantages, it can have the least complications for the patient. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of two standard and routine suctioning methods on vital signs, arterial blood oxygen saturation and pain level of patients hospitalized at the ICU. Materials andMethods: The present quasi-experimental study was conducted during year 2012 on 80 patients under mechanical ventilation hospitalized at ICUs of Zahedan city. Patients were selected purposively and were randomly divided to two groups. In the first group, suctioning was done based on the standard method recommended by the American association for respiratory care (AARC) and in the second group; it was conducted based on routine nursing care. The data was collected by means of Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and bedside monitoring of the patients was done before and at one, five, ten and fifteen minutes after suctioning. Results: The results showed that suctioning based on the routine method leads to more pain and this pain continues for 10 minutes after suctioning and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups at one and five minutes (P = 0.000, P = 0.000). The vital signs in both groups increased after suctioning and these changes were more in the second group, however, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Also, the level of arterial blood oxygen saturation increased after suctioning in both groups, but these changes were more in group 1 and there was a significant difference between the measurements at one, five, ten and fifteen minutes after suctioning and before suctioning (P = 0.00, P = 0.000, P = 0.000); yet in the second group, no significant difference was observed in none of the times (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The results of the present study showed that suctioning in the standard method brings about less pain for the patients. It results fewer changes in vital signs and also leads to increased arterial blood oxygen saturation. Thus, it should be included in the work program of the nurses through adequate training.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信