【摘要】 目的 探討健康教育路徑在下腔靜脈濾器（inferior vena cava filter，VCF）置入術患者中的應用效果。 方法 2008年1月－2010年5月，將62例VCF置入術患者隨機分為觀察組（32例）和對照組（30例），觀察組采用健康教育路徑進行健康教育，對照組患者采用常規健康教育。 結果 觀察組患者的健康教育達標率明顯高于對照組（Plt;0.05），焦慮發生率明顯低于對照組。 結論 應用健康教育路徑對VCF置入術患者實施，能提高患者對健康知識的掌握程度和效果，促進患者早日康復；同時可強化護患溝通，和諧護患關系。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effect of health education pathway in patients treated with placement of inferior vena cava filter (VCF). Methods Sixty-two patients treated with placement of inferior VCF from January 2008 to May 2010 were randomly divided into experimental group (n=32) and control group (n=30). Health education pathway and routine general way were adopted respectively to treat patients in the experimental group and the control group. Results Standard-achieving rate of the health education in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (Plt;0.05), and the incidence of anxiety was also lower in the experimental group. Conclusion Health education pathway for patients treated with placement of inferior VCF can increase the patients’ health care knowledge, lessen patients’ anxiety, and strengthen the nurse-patient communication and harmonious relations.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of Chinese rehabilitation medicine.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data and Medlive databases were electronically searched to collect CPGs of Chinese rehabilitation medicine from January 1979 to May 2018. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs by AGREE Ⅱ.ResultsA total of 11 CPGs were included, which involved 5 CPGs on nervous system rehabilitation, 1 CPG on bone and joint system rehabilitation, 1 CPG each on pediatric rehabilitation, internal medicine system rehabilitation, burn rehabilitation, earthquake rehabilitation and rehabilitation diagnosis and treatment criteria respectively. The results of AGREE Ⅱ score showed that the average scores on six domains were 65.3%, 28.0%, 9.3%, 42.1%, 6.3% and 4.0%. There were not any level A (recommended) guidelines. Two guidelines were level B (recommended after being revised). The other nine guidelines were level C (not recommended).ConclusionsThere are a few rehabilitation CPGs in China and the quality of methodology is low. AGREE's methods and concepts have not been fully used for formulation. The rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence of guidelines should be emphasized, so as to produce high level CPGs and improve clinical practice quality in rehabilitation medicine.