背景:胰岛素是治疗糖尿病的重要疗法,但是许多患者缺乏标准的胰岛素注射技能。
目的:我们基于一种新的模拟工具开发了标准的训练程序。然后,我们进行了一项研究,以研究这种标准训练对糖尿病患者注射胰岛素的能力的影响。
方法:随访后,共纳入120例糖尿病患者.这些患者需要根据他们的病情进行胰岛素治疗,并且以前没有学习过胰岛素注射。随机分为干预组(60例)和对照组(60例)。对照组出院前按传统方法进行胰岛素注射训练,并且基于改进的模拟工具对干预组进行了训练。所有参与者都作为个人或团体进行培训。最后,我们评估了两组的学习效果.
结果:干预组在训练阶段花费的时间短于对照组。我们发现,在应用模拟设备模拟操作后,减少了患者的学习时间。干预组首次皮下注射成功率为73.33%,显著高于对照组的46.67%。试验组首次皮下注射评分和出院前评分明显高于对照组。一个月后,两组的注射技能得分均高于出院前,试验组评分仍高于对照组。试验组皮下脂肪增生发生率低于对照组(3.3%vs15%,P<0.05)。此外,低血糖的发生率(16.7%vs.26.7%)高于对照组,但差异无统计学意义(P=.184)。
结论:在应用模拟工具加上操作视频和指南作为标准程序,对糖尿病患者进行胰岛素注射训练后,所有患者对胰岛素注射技术的使用掌握良好。这种教育方法是安全的,高效,值得世俗推广。
BACKGROUND: Insulin is an essential therapy for treating diabetes, but many patients lack standard insulin injection skills.
OBJECTIVE: We developed a standard training procedure based on a new simulation tool. Then we conducted a study to investigate the effect of this standard training on the ability of diabetic patients to inject themselves with insulin.
METHODS: After follow-up, a total of 120 patients with diabetes mellitus were included. These patients needed insulin therapy depending on their condition and had not previously learned insulin injection. We randomly divided them into the intervention group (60 cases) and the control group (60 cases). The control group was trained on insulin injection before being discharged according to the traditional method, and the intervention group was trained based on an improved simulation tool. All participants were trained as individuals or groups. Finally, we evaluated the learning effects of both groups.
RESULTS: The time spent at the training stage in the intervention group was shorter than the control group. We found that after applying simulation devices to mimic operations, the learning time for patients was reduced.The first subcutaneous injection success rate was 73.33% in the intervention group, which was significantly higher than that in the control group by 46.67%. The score of the first subcutaneous injection and pre-discharge score in the test group was significantly higher than that of the control group. One month later, the score for injection skills in the 2 groups was higher than that before discharge, and the score in the trial group was still higher than that in the control group. The incidence of subcutaneous fat hyperplasia in the trial group was lower than that in the control group (3.3% vs 15%, P < .05). Moreover, the incidence of hypoglycemia (16.7% vs. 26.7%) was higher in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .184).
CONCLUSIONS: After applying simulation tools plus operating video and guideline as the standard procedure to train diabetic patients on insulin injection, all patients had a good grasp of using the insulin injection technique. This education method is safe, efficient, and worth promoting worldly.