| 彭姗.团队培训模式对急诊血源性病原体职业暴露的影响[J].安徽医药,2020,24(2):300-303. |
| 团队培训模式对急诊血源性病原体职业暴露的影响 |
| Effect of team training mode on occupational exposure of blood borne pathogens in emergency department |
| |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1009?6469.2020.02.022 |
| 中文关键词: 安全管理/方法 血液安全 职业暴露 急诊处理 团队培训模式 |
| 英文关键词: Safety management/ methods Blood safety Occupational exposure Emergency treatment Occupational exposure |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1792 |
| 全文下载次数: 461 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的探讨团队培训模式对急诊血源性病原体职业暴露的影响。方法选取华中科技大学同济医学院附属武汉中心医院急诊护士 60名， 2016年 1月至 2017年 1月未实施团队培训模式急诊护士 30名作为训前组， 2017年 2月至 2018年 2月实施团队培训模式后的急诊护士 30名作为训后组，培训时间为 2个月，比较两组职业安全防护及紧急处理知识、应对方式、职业暴露。结果训后组职业安全防护掌握率明显高于训前组，差异有统计学意义( P＜0.05)；训后组紧急处理知识掌握率 98.33%明显高于训前组 75.00%，差异有统计学意义( P＜0.05)；训后组消极应对( 6.98±0.78)分、总压力得分( 10.12±1.63)分明显低于训前组( 10.62±1.52)分、(13.59±1.22)分，训后组积极应对得分( 26.32±2.54)分明显高于训前组( 20.62±2.23)分，差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)；训后组职业暴露频率 3.33%明显低于训前组 13.33%，差异有统计学意义( P＜0.05)。结论团队培训模式可有效改善急诊护士职业安全防护及紧急处理知识、应对方式，有利于减少血源性病原体职业暴露的发生，值得临床进一步推广。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To discuss the effect of team training mode on occupational exposure of blood borne pathogens in emergency department.Methods Sixty cases of emergency nurses in Wuhan Central Hospital were selected.Among them，30 emergency nurs?es who did not implement the team training mode were selected as pre training group from January 2016 to January 2017；30 emer? gency nurses who implement the team training mode were selected as post?training group from February 2017 to February 2018.The training time is 2 months.Occupational safety and emergency treatment knowledge，coping style and occupational exposure were compared between the two groups.Results The occupational safety protection of training group was significantly higher than that pre training group，and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05)； knowledge mastery rate of emergency treatment of training group was significantly higher than that pre training group(98.33% vs.75.00%)( P＜0.05)； the negative coping［( 6.98±0.78)vs.(10.62±1.52)］，total stress score of training group［( 10.12±1.63)vs.(13.59±1.22)］ was significantly lower than that pre training group；the positive response score of training group was significantly higher than that pre training group［(26.32±2.54)vs.(20.62±2.23)］，and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05)； the occupational exposure frequency of was significantly lower than that pre training group(3.33% vs. 13.33%)， and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05). Conclusion |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
