综合护理模式在动静脉内瘘术后血液透析患者中的应用效果疗效分析
Efficacy Analysis of the Application of Comprehensive Care Model in Hemodialysis Patients after Arteriovenous Fistula Surgery

目的：本研究旨在探讨综合护理模式在动静脉内瘘术后血液透析患者中的应用效果，分析其对患者术后并发症发生率、内瘘功能、生活质量及护理满意度的影响，以期为临床护理实践提供科学依据，改善患者预后。方法：选取2022年1月至2024年08月在新疆医科大学第六附属医院血液透析科接受动静脉内瘘术后血液透析的120例患者为研究对象，随机分为对照组和观察组各60例。对照组采用常规护理，观察组在常规护理基础上进行综合护理模式，比较两组患者术后并发症发生率、内瘘功能优良率、生活质量评分及护理满意度。采用SPSS 27.0软件进行数据分析，计量资料以($\bar{x}\pm s$ )表示，采用t检验；计数资料以[n (%)]表示，采用χ²检验，P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果：两组患者的性别、年龄、BMI、文化程度、是否吸烟、是否饮酒、是否有高血压、糖尿病、高脂血症等一般资料比较，没有显著性差异，差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。两组患者常见的并发症比较感染、假性动脉瘤、出血、静脉窃血综合征、护理后护理质量满意度与自护知识掌握度评分等其总发生率有显著性差异(P < 0.05)，差异有统计学意义。结论：综合护理模式能有效降低动静脉内瘘术后血液透析患者的并发症发生率，改善内瘘功能，提高患者生活质量和护理满意度。该模式通过多学科协作、个性化护理计划和全面干预措施，为患者提供了全方位的护理服务，值得在临床实践中推广应用。未来的研究应进一步探索综合护理模式在不同类型患者中的应用效果，并不断完善护理方案，以提高护理质量和患者预后。
Objective: This study aims to investigate the application effects of a comprehensive nursing model on hemodialysis patients after arteriovenous fistula surgery, analyzing its impact on the incidence of postoperative complications, fistula function, quality of life, and nursing satisfaction. The goal is to provide scientific evidence for clinical nursing practice and improve patient outcomes. Methods: A total of 120 patients undergoing hemodialysis after arteriovenous fistula surgery at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from January 2022 to August 2024 were selected as the study subjects. The patients were randomly divided into a control group and an observation group, with 60 patients in each group. The control group received routine nursing, while the observation group underwent a comprehensive nursing model in addition to routine care. The postoperative complication rates, fistula function excellence rates, quality of life scores, and nursing satisfaction were compared between the two groups. Data were analyzed using SPSS 27.0 software. Quantitative data were expressed as ($\bar{x}\pm s$ ) and analyzed using t-tests, while categorical data were expressed as [n (%)] and analyzed using χ² tests. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were no significant differences in