摘要
目的分析糖尿病患者口腔问题,并进一步阐述护理方法。方法选择该院2019年6月—2020年10月院内72例糖尿病存在口腔问题患者的资料收集。按照数表法分组,对照组36例,观察组36例。对照组行常规护理,观察组以对照组护理方法作为基础,配合口腔护理干预。对比两组护理效果、血糖控制水平,护理满意度以及感染率。结果观察组空腹血糖为(6.13±1.70)mmol/L,对照组为(9.23±2.15)mmol/L,观察组相对较低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组餐后2 h血糖为(8.25±2.35)mmol/L,对照组为(12.65±3.47)mmol/L,观察组相对较低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组糖化血红蛋白为(6.64±0.52)%,对照组为(7.82±0.94)%,观察组相对较低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组感染1例,占比2.78%,对照组感染9例,占比25.00%,观察组低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组护理满意度为97.22%(35/36),对照组为66.67%(24/36),观察组高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。护理前,对比两组菌斑指数、龈沟出血指数,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);护理后,观察组菌斑指数、龈沟出血指数分别为(0.54±0.31)分、(1.34±0.56)分,对照组菌斑指数、龈沟出血指数分别为(1.19±0.43)分、(2.25±0.48)分,观察组低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组不良反应率(5.56%)低于对照组(25.00%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在糖尿病患者中,针对其出现的口腔问题,在常规护理基础上,通过有效口腔干预,有利于患者口腔护理优化。
Objective The oral problems of diabetic patients were analyzed, and the nursing methods were further elaborated. Methods The data collection of 72 diabetic patients with oral problems in the hospital from June 2019 to October 2020 was selected. According to the number table method, there were 36 cases in the control group and 36 cases in the observation group. The control group received routine nursing care, and the observation group took the control group’s nursing method as the basis and cooperated with oral nursing intervention. The nursing effect, blood glucose control level,nursing satisfaction and infection rate were compared between the two groups. Results The fasting blood glucose of the observation group was(6.13 ±1.70) mmol/L, and the control group was(9.23 ±2.15) mmol/L, the observation group was relatively low, and the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05). The blood glucose of the observation group was(8.25 ±2.35) mmol/L at 2 h after a meal, and the control group was(12.65 ±3.47) mmol/L, the observation group was relatively low, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The glycosylated hemoglobin was(6.64±0.52)% in the observation group and(7.82±0.94)% in the control group, the observation group was relatively low, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The observation group was infected with 1 case, accounting for 2.78%, and the control group was infected with 9 cases, accounting for 25.00%, the observation group was lower than the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The nursing satisfaction degree of the observation group was 97.22%(35/36), and the control group was 66.67%(24/36), the observation group was higher than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Before nursing, the plaque index and gingival crevicular bleeding index were compared between the two groups, and the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). After nursing, the plaque index and gingival crevicular bleeding index of the observation group were(0.54 ±0.31)points and(1.34 ±0.56)points, and the plaque index and gingival crevicular bleeding index of the control group were(1.19±0.43)points and(2.25±0.48)points.The observation group was lower than the control group, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The adverse reaction rate of the observation group(5.56%) was lower than that of the control group(25.00%), and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion In diabetic patients, the oral problems that appear are established on the basis of routine care. By implementing effective oral interventions, it is conducive to the optimization of patients’ oral care.
作者
刘婷
陈昕
谢晓梅
LIU Ting;CHEN Xin;XIE Xiaomei(Department of Stomatology,the 73rd Army Hospital of the Chinese People's Liberation Army,Xiamen,Fujian Province,361000 China)
出处
《糖尿病新世界》
2021年第23期147-151,共5页
Diabetes New World Magazine
