Fine nursing intervention relieves the clinical symptoms and decreases the adverse events in acute alcoholism patients

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of fine nursing interventions on the clinical efficacy of acute alcoholism patients (AA).

Methods: A total of 100 patients with AA were included in the study. Among them, 51 patients who underwent fine nursing intervention were assigned to the research group (RG), and the remaining 49 patients were treated with routine nursing intervention and were assigned to the control group (CG). The nursing efficacy, the recovery times (consciousness and limb movement), the incidences of adverse events, the nursing compliance, the psychological states (the Symptom Checklist 90 and SCL-90 scores), and the nursing satisfaction levels were observed and compared between the two groups.

Results: Compared with the CG, the nursing efficacy, the compliance, and the nursing satisfaction levels in the RG were markedly higher, while the consciousness and limb movement recovery times were significantly shorter; moreover, the RG presented a significantly lower incidence of adverse events and SCL-90 scores than the CG.

Conclusion: While validly relieving the clinical symptoms and reducing the incidence of adverse events, fine nursing can effectively promote the recovery of patients with AA, and improve their treatment compliance and psychological states.

Keywords: Fine nursing; acute alcoholism; adverse events; clinical symptoms; prevention.

Figure 1

Recovery of the CG and the RG. A. The consciousness recovery times in the RG were markedly shorter than they were in the CG. B. The limb movement recovery times in the RG were markedly shorter than they were in CG. Note: **indicates P<0.01.

Figure 2

The psychological states of the patients in the two groups. A. The anxiety scores of the RG were markedly lower than they were in the CG. B. The depression scores in the RG were markedly lower than they were in the CG. C. The paranoid scores in the RG were markedly lower than they were in CG. D. The hostility scores in the RG were markedly lower than they were in the CG. E. The terror scores in the RG were markedly lower than they were in the CG. F. The interpersonal sensitivity scores in the RG were markedly lower than they were in the CG. G. The obsessive-compulsive symptom scores in the RG were markedly lower than they were in the CG. H. The psychotic scores in the RG were markedly lower than they were in the CG. I. The somatization scores in the RG were markedly lower than they were in the CG. Note: **indicates P<0.01.