江苏省终末期肾病患者血液透析和腹膜透析服务满意度对比分析

doi:11.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2015.03.023

上海交通大学学报（医学版）

江苏省终末期肾病患者血液透析和腹膜透析服务满意度对比分析

张文杰，张晓

东南大学公共卫生学院，南京 210009

出版日期:2015-03-28 发布日期:2015-03-26
通讯作者: 张晓, 电子信箱: zhangxiao@seu.edu.cn。
作者简介:张文杰（1990—），男，硕士生; 电子信箱: jason.wenjie@foxmail.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（71373042）

Comparative analysis of service satisfaction of ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in Jiangsu province

ZHANG Wen-jie, ZHANG Xiao

College of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China

Online:2015-03-28 Published:2015-03-26
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China, 71373042

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的比较血液透析和腹膜透析的患者服务满意度，探讨透析患者服务满意度的影响因素。方法采用自行编制的血液透析患者满意度调查问卷，于2013年3—5月期间选取苏南、苏中和苏北10个代表城市800名透析患者进行问卷调查，回收有效问卷773份，有效回收率96.6%。结果 ①血透组和腹透组两组患者的性别、原发疾病、受教育程度、医疗保险形式构成方面的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)，在透析持续时间方面的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。②血透组和腹透组对透析前宣传教育的评价，腹透组高于血透组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；对随访期宣传教育的评价，腹透组高于血透组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。③通过对血透组和腹透组的χ2检验，影响患者满意度的6个因素对两组影响的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。④根据影响满意度的6个因素，腹透组追加“电话联系医护人员的方便程度”“随访的频率”“透析中意外事件的处理程度”3个因素；对血透组和腹透组分别做多元线性回归，进一步筛选影响血透组和腹透组总体满意度的影响因素。结果显示，血透组中“医生对提出问题的讲解程度”“护士进行技术操作的专业程度”2个因素有统计学意义(P<0.05)；腹透组中“护士进行技术操作的专业程度”“透析中意外事件的处理程度”“医生对提出问题的讲解程度”3个因素有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 ①腹膜透析的总体满意度高于血液透析。②加强对腹膜透析知识的宣传教育。③提高护理人员的技术水平。④提升腹膜透析服务水平，利于腹膜透析的推广。

关键词: 透析, 患者满意度, 影响因素

Abstract:

Objective To compare the service satisfaction of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who undergo hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) and explore the factors that influence the service satisfaction. Methods A total of 800 patients from 10 cities of Jiangsu province were selected from March to May, 2013. A self-designed questionnaire of satisfaction was used. And 773 valid questionnaires were returned and the valid return rate was 96.6%. Results ①The differences of gender, primary disease, education level, and health insurance of the HD group and PD group were not statistically significant (P>0.05), while the difference of dialysis duration was statistically significant (P<0.05). ②The evaluation of propaganda and education before dialysis of the PD group was better than that of the HD group and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The evaluation of propaganda and education during follow-up period of the PD group was better than that of the HD group and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). ③The differences of effects of 6 influencing factors on the service satisfaction of patients were not statistically significant (P>0.05) according to the results of chi-square test. ④According to 6 influencing factors of service satisfaction, 3 factors were added for the PD group, i.e. the convenience of contacting medical workers by telephone, frequency of the follow-up, and handling of accidents during dialysis. The multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted for both groups and factors that influenced the overall service satisfaction were screened. The results showed that 2 factors of the HD group, i.e. interpretation of questions by doctors and professional competence of nurses, were statistically significant (P<0.05), while 3 factors of the PD group, i.e. interpretation of questions by doctors, professional competence of nurses, and handling of accidents during dialysis were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion ①The overall satisfaction of patients who undergo the PD is higher than that of patients who undergo the HD. ②The propaganda and education of peritoneal dialysis should be enhanced. ③The competence of nursing staff should be improved. ④The services for peritoneal dialysis should be enhanced and this will benefit the promotion of peritoneal dialysis.

Key words: dialysis, patients satisfaction, influencing factors

张文杰，张晓. 江苏省终末期肾病患者血液透析和腹膜透析服务满意度对比分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, doi: 11.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2015.03.023.

ZHANG Wen-jie, ZHANG Xiao. Comparative analysis of service satisfaction of ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in Jiangsu province[J]. , doi: 11.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2015.03.023.

[1]	佟琰, 方均燕, 邓海, 宋阿会, 李璞, 刘英莉. 腹膜透析滤出液外泌体miR-200a在不同腹膜转运特性患者中的表达差异及其生物学功能预测[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2021, 41(1): 42-48.
[2]	朱旻霞1, 2，张伟明1, 2，倪兆慧2，蔡宏1, 2，鲁嘉越1, 2，刘上1, 2，占雅萍1, 2. 维持性血液透析患者透析期血压波动与透析相关并发症的相关性分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 40(4): 484-.
[3]	吴圣佳1, 2，李贤华3，康磊2，忻笑4，倪雪萍5，宋婷1. 冠状动脉旁路移植术后中青年患者社会参与水平及影响因素的调查研究[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 40(2): 247-.
[4]	叶祖扬，冷斌，欧俊，毕慧欣，潘罅，邹迪莎. 小内径贵要静脉转位动静脉内瘘在血液透析中的应用[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 40(2): 276-.
[5]	卢维立1，张旭云1，廖悦1，陈慧文1，刘英莉2，宋忠臣1. 牙周基础治疗对腹膜透析牙周炎患者临床效果的观察[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2020, 40(11): 1489-1494.
[6]	邓海1，佟琰1，Kristine SUN2，夏欣怡2，李璞1，张春丽1，胡春1，宋忠臣2，刘英莉1. 慢性牙周炎在腹膜透析患者中的发病状况及其与患者透析充分性的相关性研究[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2020, 40(07): 943-949.
[7]	周悦玲，丁巍，艾红兰，卢建新，丁峰，胡春. 维持性血液透析的终末期肾病患者脑结构性异常及认知功能分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2020, 40(07): 962-967.
[8]	王丽 1, 2，章倩莹 1，林涛 1，徐天 1，黄晓敏 1，张春燕 1，徐耀文 1，吴珮 1，陈楠 1，任红 1，谢静远 1. 腹膜炎是腹膜透析患者全因死亡及心血管死亡的独立危险因素[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 39(9): 1024-.
[9]	龙泉 1，秦纪平 2，李蓉 2，常娟 2，蒋更如 3，朱淳 2, 3. 血液透析联合血液灌流治疗维持性血透患者的效果观察[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 39(8): 886-.
[10]	张素群，倪琛，盛美萍，汪云. 体外受精－胚胎移植术中单胚胎移植与双胚胎移植的妊娠结局及影响因素分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 39(6): 642-.
[11]	路会萍，吴李娜，汪海娅. 社区门诊老年高血压患者自测健康调查及其影响因素分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 39(10): 1194-.
[12]	苏新玙，刘苗，俞赞喆，严豪，李振元，张贺，袁江姿，倪兆慧，方炜. 临床常用指标在腹膜透析患者容量状态评估中的价值[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2018, 38(8): 910-.
[13]	何亚平 1，楼玮群 2，陈杰灵 2，周箴 3，朱静芬 1，简红 3. 病程12个月及以上非小细胞肺癌患者生活质量评估及影响因素研究[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2018, 38(7): 775-.
[14]	陈小妹 1，陈孜瑾 2，马晓波 2，张春丽 2，钱莹 2，俞海瑾 2，陈晓农 2. 维持性血液透析患者左心室肥厚进展情况和相关危险因素分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2018, 38(5): 505-.
[15]	庞慧华，章海芬，车妙琳，俞赞喆，林星辉，朱铭力，陆任华，方妮娜，倪兆慧，顾乐怡. 维持性血液透析患者容量状况的评估[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2018, 38(5): 524-.

江苏省终末期肾病患者血液透析和腹膜透析服务满意度对比分析

Comparative analysis of service satisfaction of ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in Jiangsu province

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics