摘要
目的调查连云港地区不同受教育程度、不同岗位、不同知识结构人群实施心肺复苏术(CPR)能力方面的差异以及实施CPR意愿与障碍的原因。方法选择本急救中心2012-03-01—2013-04-30进行救护知识培训的1万名学员为研究对象,并采用自主设计的问卷对其进行调查。其中收回有效问卷9 586张,有效率为95.86%。将有效作答的学员分为大专及以上学历组(2 377人)和高中及以下学历组(7 209人)。比较两组学员在救人能力、救人意愿、风险认知度、实施CPR的障碍点、救人法规的出台对救人意愿的影响、更愿意接受哪种CPR(05版CPR和10版CPR)等方面的差异;其次根据不同职业分组比较人们在救人能力、救人意愿等相关调查内容上的差异。结果大专及以上学历组掌握CPR技能的人数比例(58.0%)高于高中及以下学历组掌握CPR技能的人数比例(46.5%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。10版CPR在不同学历组中受欢迎程度分别为96.4%、94.7%,高于05版CPR受欢迎程度(P<0.05)。不同职业学员掌握CPR技能的比例比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);排名前4位的依次为医务人员(91.2%)、其他专业技术人员(教师等)(55.1%)、个体户(53.8%)、公务员(50.2%)。在了解救人风险后,不同学历组学员对于救人意愿的改变间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);大专及以上学历组中有58.5%的人提高了救人意愿,高中及以下学历组中有54.0%的人提高了救人意愿。如果国家出台相关规避救人风险的法规,不同学历组学员对于救人意愿的改变间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);大专及以上学历组中有67.3%的人提高了救人意愿,高中及以下学历组中有55.9%的人提高了救人意愿。CPR培训在不同学历组中对紧急状态下实施CPR的意愿影响差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);大专及以上学历组学员对于患者是自己的亲人时,绝大多数人(54.5%)表现出救人的意愿;高中及以下学历组学员对于患者是自己的亲人时,绝大多数人(65.5%)表现的是救人意愿保持不变。大专及以上学历组学员不愿实施CPR的原因前3位依次为担心做不好(37.5%)、怕担责任(16.1%)、不会做(14.1%);高中及以下学历组学员不愿实施CPR的原因前3位依次为担心做不好(46.4%)、不会做(18.6%)、其他原因(14.8%)。结论大专及以上学历组掌握CPR的能力高于高中及以下学历组,10版CPR更容易被民众所接受,相关救人法规的出台和熟悉救人风险均能提高民众救人的意愿。故了解本地民众不愿施救的原因,并有针对性地进行培训,能够有效提高民众的救人意愿,从而达到提高猝死患者抢救成功率的目的。
Objective ＇ To explore the ability of cardiopulmonary resuscitation （CPR） of people with different educa- tional levels, positions, knowledge structures and their willingness and obstacles performing CPR. Methods A self - made questionnaire on first - aid knowledge was performed in 10 000 trainees. A total of 9 586 valid questionnaires were taken back （ 95.86% ） , and divided into groups A （ with college educational level or higher, n = 2 377 ） , B （ with educational level of high school or below, n = 7 209 ）. The rescue ability, willingness, risk awareness, barriers for CPR performance, effect of legisla- tions for rescue on willingness of rescue, preference for which CPR （CPR version 2005 or version 2010） were compared between 2 groups. The difference of rescue ability, willingness compared between different occupational groups. Results Number of group A grasping CPR skills （58.0%） was more than that of group B （46. 5% ）, the difference was significant （ P 〈 0. 05 ）.The popularity degrees of CPR version 2010 were 96.4% in group A, 94. 7% in group B, higher than those of CPR version 2005 （P 〈 0.05 ）. There was difference in CPR skills between varying occupational groups （P 〈 0. 05 ）. The top 4 were successively medical staff （91.2%）, other professionals （55.1%）, individual household （53.8%）, civil servants （50. 2% ）. There was significant difference in willingness alteration between 2 groups after knowing about risks of rescue （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. The rescue will- ingness increased in 58. 5% of group A, in 54. 0% of group B. If the state issued regulations related to evading rescue risks, there was difference in willingness alteration between 2 groups （ P 〈 0. 05 ） , and 67.3% of group A, 55.9% of group B in- creased their rescue willingness. There was difference in impact of CPR training on CPR under emergency condition between 2 groups （P 〈 0. 05 ）. 54. 5% of group A, 65.5 % of group B showed rescue willingness when patients were their relatives. The top 3 reasons for unwillingness to implementing CPR were fearing failure （37. 5% ）, being afraid of bearing responsibility （ 16. 1% ）, being unable to do it （ 14. 1% ） in group A, and fearing failure （46.4%）, being unable to do it （ 18.6% ）, other reasons in group B. Conclusion The ability of CPR is higher in group A than in group B. CPR version 2010 is more popular. Regulations for rescue risk evading and rescuing relatives can increase people＇s rescue willingness. Knowing about the reasons for people＇s unwillingness to rescue and targeted training can increase people＇s willingness, to improve survival rate of patients with sudden death.
出处
《中国全科医学》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2014年第2期206-210,共5页
Chinese General Practice
基金
2012年江苏省连云港市卫生局科研项目(1240)
关键词
心肺复苏术
问卷调查
意愿
障碍
法律实施
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Questionnaires
Desire
Disorder
Law enforcement
