风险评估分类法联合安抚教育预防分娩风险及对分娩方式选择的影响

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (15)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (27 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To explore the risk assessment classification combined with comfort education in the prevetion of childbirth risks and its effects on the choice of childbirth methods. Methods A total of 90 expectant puerperae who were admitted to the Fuzhou Institute of Medical Sciences from July 2018 to February 2020 were selected as the study subjects. According to the random number method, they were divided into the control group (45 cases) and the trial group (45 cases). The control group was given conventional nursing methods, and the trial group was given a risk assessment classification method combined with comfort education for intervention. Both groups were given nursing care for 15 weeks. The delivery methods, neonatal outcomes and nursing satisfaction were compared between the two groups.Results The normal delivery rate of puerperae in the trial group was higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The total incidence rate of neonatal outcomes in the trial group was lower than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in satisfaction between the two groups (P＞0.05). Conclusion The risk assessment classification combined with comfort education can reduce the risk of childbirth, improve the level of childbirth, and improve the satisfaction of puerperae with the nursing work.

Key words： Childbirth risks Risk assessment classification Comfort education Delivery methods

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	WANG Zhi-hong
	XU Han-xiu
	LIU Ling-zhen

Cite this article:

WANG Zhi-hong,XU Han-xiu,LIU Ling-zhen. Risk assessment classification combined with comfort education in the prevention of childbirth risks and its effects on the choice of childbirth methods[J]. 中国当代医药, 2021, 28(34): 209-211.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2021/V28/I34/209

[1]	吕晶晶，傅荣.叙事护理在初产妇自然分娩应对中的影响[J].医学研究生学报，2020，33（11）：84-88.
[2]	杨艳霞.新助产护理模式对促进自然分娩的效果分析[J].中国药物与临床，2020，20（8）：1394-1395.
[3]	谢幸，孔北华，段涛.妇产科学[M].9 版.北京：人民卫生出版社，2018：43.
[4]	何杨，杨柳，刘俊，等.免费孕前优生健康检查风险评估分类法的探索应用[J].中国计划生育和妇产科，2012，1（5）：46-49.
[5]	吴菁茜，朱莉.门诊开展优质护理服务对患者护理满意度的影响[J].中国组织工程研究，2016，20（2）：282.
[6]	果苗.助产护理对高龄产妇分娩方式及产程的影响研究[J].中国急救医学，2018，38（1）：345.
[7]	郑海霞，张清，刘淑霞.共同决策视角下产妇分娩方式最佳决策的影响因素分析[J].中国妇幼保健，2019，34（20）：21-24.
[8]	范秀丽，季庆华，叶张艳，等.系统化心理干预对初产妊娠孕妇社会行为、分娩方式及妊娠结局的影响[J].实用预防医学，2018，25（3）：352-354.
[9]	张娟，樊慧妮，赵梅，等.体质量管理护理对初产妇分娩方式及新生儿体质量的影响[J].贵州医药，2019，43（5）：828-829.
[10]	丁洁.产前护理对孕妇选择分娩方式及妊娠结局的作用研究[J].山西医药杂志，2018，47（18）：130-132.
[11]	桂冰，卢锦芳，朱惠娟.助产护理干预对高龄产妇分娩方式及产程的影响[J].海南医学，2018，29（17）：2512-2514.
[12]	任敏，涂素华，邱敏，等.孕妇围生期健康素养水平与分娩方式的相关性分析[J].解放军护理杂志，2020，37（1）：22-25.
[15]	贾笑天，朱丹.个体化产程管理对初产妇配合度及分娩方式的影响[J].护理学杂志，2018，1（2）：16-18.
[14]	黄璟，蒋盘华，陆浩雅，等.责任亲情交互护理模式对初产妇母乳喂养及自我效能的影响[J].护理研究，2018，32（16）：101-103.
[15]	耿悦，董婷，汤珏瑶.产妇分类管理联合安抚教育在降低产妇分娩风险及提高顺产率中的应用效果[J].当代护士（专科版），2019，26（4）：87-90.