臨床護理人員使用Newport e500呼吸器輔助自學手冊之成效
| 論文名稱(中/英文) | 研究生 | 指導教授 |
|
臨床護理人員使用Newport e500呼吸器輔助自學手冊之成效 nurses in the clinical practice |
黃朱岑 | 許麗齡博士 |
| [ 摘要 ] | ||
| 本研究目的是評量東部某地區級榮民醫院之護理人員，教導呼吸器操作程序，並輔以自學手冊教材使用後，以評估護理人員對呼吸輔助器操作之認知得分。以某榮民醫院之內科、外科、負壓、加護及呼吸照護病房，曾照顧過呼吸器病患之護理人員為研究對象共有56人，採用「單組前後測設計」，在手冊介入前，研究對象需接受前測，前測施測完畢後，立即示範呼吸輔助器之操作，並給予每人一份自學手冊，約於兩週後，進行問卷之後測，回收有效問卷53份(94.62％)。資料分析採用描述性統計、t檢定、相關檢定及單因子變異數分析。 研究結果顯示：（一）「呼吸器輔助自學手冊」介入之後，護理人員在呼吸輔助器操作之認知後測平均分數統計上顯著高於前測平均分數；（二）呼吸輔助器操作之認知平均分數為20.58 ± 2.74（滿分為25），且認知分數的四個次項平均分數範圍介於0.69分到0.90分，分數由高而低依序為「問題與解決」、「管路配備」、「管路組裝」及「呼吸輔助器之應用」；（三）個人基本資料中「年資」與呼吸器操作認知得分達顯著相關、而「職稱」與呼吸器操作總認知達顯著差異。進一步以薛費氏法（Scheffe’s Method）方式進行「職稱」的事後比較分析，結果顯示「正式護理師」的總認知得分高於「約聘護理師」；（四）約有73％(39人)的護理人員對手冊內容設計清楚簡單易懂表示滿意；86％(46人)的護理人員認為手冊能提升自我在呼吸輔助器照護上的認知及非常適用於臨床照護，且有高達96％(51人)以上的護理人員願意依照手冊教導的去做。 結論：藉由自學式手冊為教育介入方式，能有效的提昇護理人員在呼吸器操作的相關認知能力。因此，建議未來在推動臨床護理人員的呼吸輔助器教育時，可以自學式手冊為管道，教導護理人員在呼吸輔助器相關能力的學習，如此不僅能增進護理人員對呼吸器之了解，進而能提供病人之安全照護。 |
||
| [ Abstract ] | ||
| The purpose of this study was to assess the cognitive scores of respiratory ventilator among nurses before and after using the respiratory ventilator manual at a certain Veteran Hospital at the northeast Taiwan. This was one group pretest-posttest study design. Fifty-six nurses were recruited in this study including medical, surgical, intensive care, and respiratory care unit. The intervention consisted of demonstration of operating a respiratory ventilator and giving a self-learning manual of respiratory ventilators. A self-designated questionnaire was validated by experts and used to measure the cognitive score of using the respiratory ventilator manual before the intervention and two weeks after the intervention. The Data were analyzed by descriptive analysis, Spearman correlation, t-test, one-way ANOVA using SPSS 12 version software package. The findings presented that the mean cognitive score of using respiratory ventilator manual among subjects at the posttest was significantly higher than the pretest. Second, the mean cognitive score of using respiratory ventilator manual was 20.58 ± 2.74(the full score was 25). Also, four cognitive subscores of using the respiratory ventilator manual ranged from 0.69 to 0.90. The rank in mean subscores was “question and answer”, “tubing appliance”, “tubing assemblage”, and “the application of respiratory ventilators”. Third, there was a significant relationship work in year and a significant difference job position of the demographic data and cognitive scores of using the respiratory ventilator manual. In addition to, the formal nurses’ cognitive scores of using the respiratory ventilator manual was greater than the contracting nurses using Scheffe’s test. Fourth, 83% of nurses addressed “satisfaction” on using the respiratory ventilator manual because its content was clear and easy to understand. Again, 73% of nurses described the improvement of respiratory ventilator cognitive ability after using the respiratory ventilator manual. Additionally, 86% of nurses agreed that the respiratory ventilator manual was useful in clinical practice. Furthermore, 96% of nurses were willing to execute the content according to the respiratory ventilator manual. In general, nurses can improve the respiratory cognitive ability by using the respiratory ventilator manual. Therefore, this study suggests that the respiratory ventilator manual can be a way of proceeding respiratory ventilator’s education among nurses in the future. By doing so, it can help nurses to understand the respiratory ventilators and to provide safety care to patients. |
||