PDCA循环法及根本原因分析法在持续正压通气治疗重症肺炎患儿中的应用效果

来源期刊：广州医药 | 157-163 发布时间：2024-03-06 收稿时间：2025/11/13 18:50:58 阅读量：27

作者：: 庄江兰,

杨美菊,

沈美丽,

张琴华,

吴清坦,

李翠娥,

关键词：: 重症肺炎持续正压通气 PDCA循环法根本原因分析法应用效果; severe pneumonia continuous positive pressure ventilation PDCA circulation method root cause analysis application effect

DOI：: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8535.2024.02.010

收稿时间：: 2023-08-08
修订日期：
接收日期：
引用总数：: 3

目的探讨计划-实施-检查-处理（PDCA）循环法及根本原因分析法在持续正压通气治疗重症肺炎患儿中的应用效果。方法选取2021年1月—2023年1月医院收治并接受鼻塞式持续正压通气治疗的重症肺炎患儿80例,基于随机数字表法分为两组,每组各40例。对照组接受常规护理,观察组采用PDCA循环法联合根本原因分析法护理干预。比较两组临床症状改善时间、血气指标[动脉血氧分压（PaO₂）、动脉血氧饱和度（SaO₂）、动脉血二氧化碳分压（PaCO₂）]、肺功能指标[第1秒用力呼气容积（FEV₁）、潮气量（VT）]、炎症免疫指标[单核细胞趋化蛋白-1（MCP-1）、可溶性髓系细胞触发受体-1（sTREM-1）、可溶性细胞间黏附分子-1（sICAM-1）]水平变化,比较两组患儿家属满意度情况。结果观察组患儿咳嗽、气促、哮鸣音、心率恢复及紫绀等症状改善用时均低于对照组,比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。干预前,两组患儿PaO₂、SaO₂、PaCO₂、FEV₁、VT、MCP-1、sTREM-1、sICAM-1水平比较差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）;干预后,两组患儿上述指标水平均有不同程度变化（P<0.05）,观察组PaO₂（97.18±7.90 mmHg vs 90.30±7.12 mmHg）、SaO₂（93.58±3.82% vs 86.30±4.21%）、FEV₁（2.66±0.46 L vs 1.97±0.34 L）、VT（11.92±1.89% vs 9.83±1.10%）水平均高于对照组,观察组PaCO₂（36.70±3.97 mmHg vs 40.65±3.79 mmHg）、MCP-1（58.45±11.94 ng/L vs 74.46±16.69 ng/L）、sTREM-1（36.25±8.30 ng/L vs 51.57±9.51 ng/L）、sICAM-1（187.52±31.22 mg/L vs 243.73±46.79 mg/L）水平低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。观察组患儿家属满意度整体优于对照组（P<0.05）;观察组总满意率（97.5% vs 77.5%）高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 PDCA循环法及根本原因分析法应用于接受持续正压通气治疗的重症肺炎患儿,能够有效促进患儿临床症状改善,有利于血气及肺功能恢复,且可降低炎症反应,患儿家属满意度较高。

Objective To explore the application effect of Plan-Do-Check-Action（PDCA）circulation method and root cause analysis method in the treatment of children with severe pneumonia with continuous positive pressure ventilation．Methods From January 2021 to January 2023,80 children with severe pneumonia who were admitted to hospital and received nasal plug continuous positive pressure ventilation treatment were enrolled in this study．Based on the random number table method,they were divided into two groups,with 40 cases in each group．The control group received routine nursing,while the observation group received PDCA circulation method combined with root cause analysis nursing intervention．The improvement time of clinical symptoms,changes in blood gas indicators[arterial partial oxygen pressure（PaO₂）,arterial oxygen saturation（SaO₂）,arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide（PaCO₂）],lung function indicators [（forced expiratory volume in 1 second,FEV₁）,tidal volume（VT）],and inflammatory immune indicators [monocyte chemotactic protein-1（MCP-1）,soluble myeloid cell trigger receptor-1（sTREM-1）,soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1（sICAM-1）] levels between the two groups were compared,and the family members’ satisfaction of the two groups was also compared．Results The improvement time for symptoms such as cough,shortness of breath,wheezing,heart rate recovery and cyanosis in the observation group was lower than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）．Before intervention,there was no statistically significant difference in the levels of PaO₂,SaO₂,PaCO₂,FEV₁,VT,MCP-1,sTREM-1 and sICAM-1 between the two groups of children（P>0.05）．After intervention,the levels of the above indicators in both groups of children showed varying degrees of change（P<0.05）．The levels of PaO₂（97.18±7.90 mmHg vs 90.30±7.12 mmHg）,SaO₂（93.58±3.82% vs 86.30±4.21%）,FEV₁（2.66±0.46 L vs 1.97±0.34 L）,VT（11.92±1.89% vs 9.83±1.10%）in the observation group were higher than those in the control group．The levels of PaCO₂（36.70±3.97 mmHg vs 40.65±3.79 mmHg）,MCP-1（58.45±11.94 ng/L vs 74.46±16.69 ng/L）,sTREM-1（36.25±8.30 ng/L vs 51.57±9.51 ng/L）and sICAM-1（187.52±31.22 mg/L vs 243.73±46.79 mg/L）in the observation group were lower than those of the control group,with statistically significant differences（P<0.05）．The overall satisfaction of the observation group was better than that of the control group（P<0.05）,the total family members’ satisfaction rate of the observation group was higher than that of the control group（97.5% vs 77.5%）,with a statistically significant difference（P<0.05）．Conclusions PDCA circulation method and root cause analysis method applied to children with severe pneumonia who receive continuous positive pressure ventilation treatment,can effectively promote the improvement of clinical symptoms,be conducive to the recovery of blood gas and lung function,and reduce inflammatory reaction,with high family members’ satisfaction．

1、时银萍,李晓,崔学艳,等.运用PDCA循环法改善住院患者静脉输液使用情况[J].中国药房,2022,33(22):2797-2800.

2、王建伟,张庆龙,王楠楠,等.重症肺炎患者治疗期间血清sICAM-1、IL-8动态监测对病情进展的影响[J].广东医学,2023,44(1):13-18.

3、符征高,陈钰,梁勇,等.重症肺炎患者血浆sTREM-1、sFLT-1及SOD水平变化及临床意义[J].昆明医科大学学报,2021,42(10):132-138.

4、瞿云,张子洲,史志勇,等.老年肺部感染并发脓毒症患者MCP-1与HGF和炎症因子的表达水平[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2021,31(20):3073-3077.

5、张琦,冯伟平,韩涛.乙酰半胱氨酸联合PDCA循环法治疗小儿支原体肺炎的临床疗效及其对免疫功能的影响[J].实用药物与临床,2022,25(3):247-250.

6、戴小容. 基于根本原因分析法为指导护理在胃癌患者护理中应用预防术后并发症效果观察[J].山西医药杂志,2022,51(15):1710-1714.

7、王微,凌静,倪志垚,等.PDCA循环法促进重点监控药品管理效果分析[J].药学实践杂志,2022,40(2):180-183.

8、赵宝君,刘雪琴,王平.新生儿经鼻持续无创正压通气致鼻损伤的现状调查及影响因素分析[J].中华现代护理杂志,2022,28(14):1944-1947.

9、王天有,申昆玲,沈颖.诸福棠实用儿科学[M].9版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2022:47.

10、 LYU X,SUN C,DONG Z,et al.Analysis of the effect of a root cause analysis in elderly patients with acute pancreatitis:a randomized trial[J].Ann Palliat Med,2021,10(5):5738-5745.

11、唐艳,詹昱新,欧阳燕,等.PDCA循环法在神经外科病房气道湿化管理中的应用[J].中国临床神经外科杂志,2022,27(8):690-692.

12、阎进晓,邓巧妮.鼻塞式持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)治疗小儿重症肺炎的疗效及安全性分析[J].贵州医药,2021,45(6):883-884.

13、李勤勤,彭东红.经鼻持续气道正压通气治疗的儿童重症肺炎病原学分析[J].儿科药学杂志,2021,27(5):9-11.

14、张军红,刘雪芹,孙国玉.不同潮气量机械通气治疗重症肺炎患儿的有效性和安全性[J].中国妇幼保健,2022,37(2):249-251.

15、 ROSAS I O,BR?U N,WATERS M,et al.Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with severe covid-19 pneumonia[J].N Engl J Med,2021,384(16):1503-1516.

1、杨飞,张阿利.单道微量注射泵气道湿化在重症肺炎患者中的应用效果[J].医疗装备,2024,37(24):75-77+81.

2、董阳,谢艳,李丹莉,等.无创正压通气老年患者鼻面部压力性损伤预防的研究进展[J].广州医药,2025,56(07):885-892.DOI:10.20223/j.cnki.1000-8535.2025.07.004.

3、茆在辉,谢欣照,张晔,等.基于RCA方法的医院后勤安全隐患分析与应对策略[J].现代医院,2025,25(07):1061-1065+1070.