论文部分内容阅读
目的:评价慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期临床路径的效果。方法:选取我科收治住院的慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期的临床病例共120例,分为实验组与对照组,每组60例。对照组按普通流程进行住院管理;实验组按制定的临床路径实施住院管理。记录与比较分析两组的疗效、住院时间、住院总费用、药品费用、住院期间出现并发症的情况以及患者对此次住院的满意度。结果:实验组的治疗效果优于对照组,两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组的平均住院时间为(10.66±2.16)d,少于对照组的(11.65±2.57)d,两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组的平均住院费用与平均药品费用分别为(7 670.83±1 109.98)、(3 191.30±139.43)元,均低于对照组的(81 167.83±1 131.45)、(3 358.80±153.54)元,两组间差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论:慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期临床路径的开展对提高疗效、缩短住院时间、节约住院费用和控制药品使用均有积极的作用,具备较好的社会与经济效益,值得临床推广。
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcome of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: A total of 120 clinical cases of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admitted to our hospital were selected and divided into experimental group and control group with 60 cases in each group. Control group according to the normal flow of hospital management; experimental group according to the established clinical pathway implementation hospitalization. Records and comparative analysis of the two groups of efficacy, length of stay, total cost of hospitalization, drug costs, complications during hospitalization and patient satisfaction with the hospitalization. Results: The therapeutic effect of the experimental group was better than that of the control group, with significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05). The average length of stay in the experimental group was (10.66 ± 2.16) days, which was less than that in the control group (11.65 ± 2.57) days. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). The average cost of hospitalization and the average cost of medicine in the experimental group were (7 670.83 ± 1 109.98) and (3 191.30 ± 139.43) yuan, respectively, which were lower than those of the control group (81 167.83 ± 1 131.45) and (3 358.80 ± 153.54) yuan, The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion: The clinical pathology of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has a positive effect on improving the curative effect, shortening the length of hospital stay, saving the cost of hospitalization and controlling the use of medicines. It has good social and economic benefits and is worthy of clinical promotion.