Feasibility and Application of Cluster Nursing to the Care of Patients with Acute Oncology

Abstract

Objective: To probe the utility of cluster nursing for the care of acute oncology clients.

Methods: One hundred fourteen cases of acute oncology pioneers undergoing therapy in our clinic from April 2019 to February 2021 were randomly assigned into two consecutive arms, conventional care and cluster care, in accordance with the nursing modality. Complications, satisfaction, quality of survival, and negative emotions were compared across the two parties.

Results: The comorbidity incidence rate of the subject matter in the research cohort was 7.02%, which was below the comorbidity rate of 17.54% in the reaction cohort (P < 0.05); the percentage of satisfaction in the research cohort was 96.49%, which was higher than the satisfaction rate of 78.95% in the reaction cohort (P < 0.05); aftercare, the quality of survival was significantly higher in both groups, and the SAS and SDS scores were significantly lower, with a more pronounced trend of change in the research cohort than in the reaction cohort (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Bundled care for casualty oncology is of major value, with a marked reduction in the incidence of postoperative complications, high quality of survival, an excellent prognosis and negative mood, high patient morale and satisfaction and compliance with curative treatment, and good support for subsequent care.

Figure 1

Concurrent illnesses in both sets of groups. Note. In the evaluation of complications such as catheter detachment, catheter obstruction, venous thrombosis, local inflammatory reaction of the skin, and phlebitis, the incidence of complications in the study group was lower than that in the control group, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Figure 2

Satisfaction in both arms. Note. The research group was more satisfied than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Figure 3

Quality of survival in the two sets of groups. Note. In the evaluation of survival functions such as environment, physiological function, social relationship, psychological state, independence, and religion/spirit, the study group had a higher quality of life score than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Figure 4

SAS and SDS scores for both sets of groups. Note. There was no significant difference in SAS and SDS scores between the two groups before nursing, the negative emotions in both groups were significantly improved after nursing, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).