ISSN 3080-7638(Print)
ISSN 3080-7646(Online)
版权信息

ISSN 3080-7638(Print)
ISSN 3080-7646(Online)
CODEN:SQHAA7
(国际标准连续出版物标识符·
全球唯一标识符)
分配机构:美国化学文摘社(CAS)

编委会
主编
郑永波
同行评议专家

副主编
徐爱芳/南通市第二人民医院
马燕/广西贺州市人民医院
黄美莹/贵州工商职业学院
李佳怡/姜晨/张海洋
蒋惠如/杨毅宁/冯智博
汪亚坤/王菡侨/李波
(以上排名不分先后顺序)
编委
 
编委会助理
周鹏
期刊主页
在线投稿
申请编委/副主编/同行评议专家
索引/检索/存档
DOI
ICI World of Journals
哥白尼索引期刊数据库(波兰)

EuroPub
欧洲学术出版中心数据库(英国)

巴西联邦政府
LivRe(科学在线图书馆)

Open Access Library(OALib)
开放存取资源图书馆

RCCSE中国学术期刊收录(武大)
ESJI欧亚科学期刊索引(哈萨克斯坦)
KIND CONGRESS KC
Research Bible
Sci Online
Baidu Baike 
Editing and Publishing
Quest Press Limited
Address
7th Floor,D, No.19,Palawak
Lane, Macau
Telephone
+853 6881 9699
Email
QuestPress@hotmail.com
Web site
http://qkhl.scionline2025.com/
 

  首页 -> 往期阅览-> 2025年
《实用全科护理学》( ISSN3080-7638、EISSN3080-7646 ) 发布者:Quest Press 发布日期:2025/10/9
10.12479/questpress-syqkhlx.20250209 Open Access 下载1 浏览20

 

基于eCASH理念的规范化疼痛评估护理对结直肠手术患者术后疼痛的影响

曹晓枫
北京市第六医院 肿瘤及普外,北京,100070
摘要:目的 探讨基于舒适化浅镇静策(eCASH)理念的规范化疼痛评估护理在采用患者自控静脉镇痛(PCIA)的结直肠手术患者中的应用效果。方法 前瞻性选取 2022 年 5 月-2024 年 8 月于本院行腹腔镜结直肠手术的 102 例患者随机分为两组,接受常规围术期镇痛护理的患者纳入常规组,接受基于eCASH 理念的规范化疼痛评估护理的患者纳入 eCASH 组。比较两组术后不同时间镇痛效果,比较两组术后 PCIA 按压次数、口服镇痛药物用量、预后恢复情况,比较干预前后两组疾病认知水平、焦虑状态。结果 eCASH 组术后不同时间 VAS 评分、PCIA 按压次数、口服镇痛药物用量、预后恢复时间均低于常规组(P<0.05);干预后两组疾病认知水平较干预前均上升,且 eCASH 组高于常规组(P<0.05);干预后两组 STAI 较干预前均降低,且 eCASH 组低于常规组(P<0.05)。结论 基于 eCASH 理念的规范化疼痛评估护理能改善结直肠手术患者术后镇痛效果,避免镇痛药物滥用,并有效优化患者术后康复进程。
关健词:eCASH 理念;规范化疼痛评估;结直肠手术;PCIA 镇痛
 
The Impact of Standardized Pain Assessment Nursing Based on the eCASH Concept on Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery
Xiaofeng Cao
Department of Oncology and General Surgery, Beijing Sixth Hospital, Beijing 100070, China
Abstract: Objective To explore the application effect of standardized pain assessment nursing based on the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)-focused Comfort and Analgesia, Minimized Sedation, and Hemodynamic stability (eCASH) concept in patients undergoing colorectal surgery who receive Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia (PCIA).Methods A total of 102 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery in our hospital from May 2022 to August 2024 were prospectively selected and randomly divided into two groups. Patients who received routine perioperative analgesic nursing were included in the conventional group, while those who received standardized pain assessment nursing based on the eCASH concept were included in the eCASH group. The analgesic effects at different postoperative time points, the number of postoperative PCIA presses, the dosage of oral analgesics, and postoperative recovery outcomes were compared between the two groups. Additionally, the patients’ disease-related knowledge level and anxiety status before and after the intervention were compared.Results The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores at different postoperative time points, the number of PCIA presses, the dosage of oral analgesics, and the postoperative recovery time in the eCASH group were all lower than those in the conventional group (P < 0.05). After the intervention, the isease-related knowledge level of both groups increased compared with that before the intervention, and the level in the eCASH group was higher than that in the conventional group (P < 0.05). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores of both groups decreased after the intervention, and the score in the eCASH group was lower than that in the conventional group (P < 0.05). Conclusion Standardized pain assessment nursing based on the eCASH concept can improve the postoperative analgesic effect in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, avoid the abuse of analgesic drugs, and effectively optimize the patients’ postoperative rehabilitation process.
Keywords:eCASH concept; standardized pain assessment; colorectal surgery; PCIA analgesia
 
 
 
  Peer Review
同行评审
Editorial Services
编辑服务
Research Ethics Policy
研究伦理政策
Contributorship & Authorship
贡献者与署名
About Quest Press / Macau Sino Int. Med. Press
关于 Quest Press 与 Macau Sino Int. Med. Press
  Global Indexing
全球索引
Copyright Licensing
版权许可
Data Sharing Policy
数据共享政策
Appeal/Correction/Retraction
申诉/更正/撤回
  Online Submission
线上投稿
To the Librarian
致图书馆员
Open Access Statement
开放获取声明
Misconduct Handling Policy
处理不端行为政策
  Content Licensing
内容许可
Guidelines for Reviewers
审稿人指南
Quality Control Mechanism
质量把控机制
Academic Misconduct Screening Policy
学术不端筛查政策
  Advertising Policy
广告政策
Article Processing Charge (APC)
文章处理费
Publication Ethics Policy
出版伦理政策
Call for Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors/Peer Reviewers/Editors-in-Chief
诚邀编委、副主编、同行评审专家及主编