The effect of rapid time-effect management mode on the time-effect and prognosis of bedside endotracheal suctioning in critically ill patients

doi:10.19983/j.issn.2096-8493.20260157

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: To explore the effect of rapid time-effect management mode on bedside bronchoscope sputum suction in critically ill patients. Methods: A total of 100 critically ill patients who received bedside bronchoscopic sputum aspiration in the Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) of The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College from November 2024 to October 2025 were enrolled in this study. Allocation concealment was implemented using the sealed envelope method, and patients were assigned to an observation group and a control group via the random number table method, with 50 cases in each group. The control group received routine nursing intervention, while the observation group received intervention based on the rapid time-effect management mode. The two groups were compared in terms of clinical observation indicators, complication incidence, respiratory function indicators, blood gas analysis indicators, psychological status, self-efficacy and comfort level. Results: After intervention, the operation time, dyspnea recovery time, cough recovery time and hospital stay in the observation group were (20.66±2.84) min, (12.34±1.66) d, (12.38±1.63) d and (23.22±1.96) d respectively, all shorter than those in the control group ((41.48±2.44) min, (20.36±3.34) d, (21.32±3.43) d, (30.94±1.97) d), with statistically significant differences (t=-39.586, -15.193, -16.646, -19.618; all P<0.01).After intervention, the respiratory rate (RR), airway pressure (AP) and tidal volume (TV) in the observation group were (18.34±1.70) breaths/min, (10.54±0.50) mmHg and (8.44±0.50) ml/kg respectively, all better than those in the control group ((22.70±1.17) breaths/min, (8.44±0.50) mmHg, (7.52±0.51) ml/kg), with statistically significant differences (t=-15.305, 20.898, 9.144; all P<0.01).After intervention, the pH value, partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO₂), arterial oxygen saturation (SaO₂) and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) in the observation group were 7.41±0.04, (78.38±2.19) mmHg, (96.16±1.18) % and (42.44±1.51) mmHg respectively, all better than those in the control group (7.33±0.05, (64.06±2.65) mmHg, (89.84±1.42) %, (51.28±1.94) mmHg), with statistically significant differences (t=8.828, 29.467, 24.175, -25.415; all P<0.01).After intervention, the scores of the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) and General Comfort Questionnaire (GCQ) in the observation group were (36.32±2.64), (36.08±2.36), (33.44±1.09) and (94.86±3.15) points respectively, all better than those in the control group ((47.50±1.74), (47.22±1.50), (22.92±1.81), (75.08±2.16) points), with statistically significant differences (t=-25.015, -28.129, 35.267, 36.648; all P<0.01).The total incidence of complications in the observation group after intervention was 4.00% (2/50), which was lower than 20.00% (10/50) in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (χ²=4.640, P=0.031). Conclusion: The application of the rapid time-effect management mode in patients undergoing bedside flexible bronchoscopy in PCCM can significantly improve respiratory function, hemodynamics and psychological status, enhance self-efficacy and nursing comfort, help shorten the clinical treatment cycle, and reduce the risk of complications, which is worthy of clinical promotion and application.

Key words: Critical care, Intensive care units, Bronchoscopy, Patient care

CLC Number:

Chen Jiali, Ke Xianli, Lin Yanhuan, Lin Jingjun. The effect of rapid time-effect management mode on the time-effect and prognosis of bedside endotracheal suctioning in critically ill patients[J]. Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 2026, 7(5): 635-642. doi: 10.19983/j.issn.2096-8493.20260157

Figures/Tables 6

References 20

[1]	Lockstone J, Love A, Chian K, et al. Benefits and risks of ventilator hyperinflation in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Aust Crit Care, 2023, 36(6):1150-1158. doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2023.01.005. pmid: 36822978
[2]	Li B, Li Z, Cheng W, Zhang B, et al. Application of sputum suction by fiberoptic bronchoscope in patients with severe pneumonia and its effect on inflammatory factors[J]. Am J Transl Res, 2021, 3(7):8409-8414.
[3]	Li Y, Li X, Wen Z, et al. Effect of open versus closed endotracheal suctioning on intracranial pressure in severe brain-injured children: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial[J]. Nurs Open, 2021, 8(5):2886-2891. doi:10.1002/nop2.656.
[4]	彭俏俏, 杨湘英, 曾小康. 一种降低VAP发生率的全封闭式吸痰管冲洗装置的设计与应用[J]. 中华危重病急救医学, 2022, 34(8):871-872. doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20220328-00302.
[5]	Uluç K, Öngel E A, İlkaya N K, et al. Indication, complication, and prognosis of fiberoptic bronchoscopy guided percutaneous dilatation tracheostomy opening in respiratory intensive care unit: a retrospective study[J]. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2023, 27(24):11771-11779. doi:10.26355/eurrev_202312_34775.
[6]	祝丽华, 王强, 赖红梅, 等. 急性心肌梗死患者急诊快速时效管理体系的构建及应用效果[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2023, 20(24):3730-3733. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2023.24.036.
[7]	田银娣, 王怡恺, 李静, 等. 焦虑和抑郁量表在肝硬化患者临床应用中的信效度评价[J]. 实用肝脏病杂志, 2019, 22(1):105-108. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2019.01.028.
[8]	康琼芳, 卢惠娟, 吴敏, 等. 化疗患儿照顾者自我效能感量表的研制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学杂志, 2020, 35(13):9-12. doi:10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2020.13.009.
[9]	李彦华, 刘瑞云, 王霞, 等. 宫颈癌腔内后装治疗病人舒适状况量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理研究, 2017, 31(5):629-631. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2017.05.040.
[10]	Wang W, Xie J B, Yang T B, et al. Outcomes of early fiberoptic bronchoscopic sputum aspiration and lavage after thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophageal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial[J]. J Cardiothorac Surg, 2023, 18(1):268. doi:10.1186/s13019-023-02370-7. pmid: 37794501
[11]	徐维国, 陈斌, 李惠, 等. 支气管镜检查心脏骤停2例原因分析及文献复习[J]. 中国内镜杂志, 2012, 18(1):109-111.
[12]	Zhang S, Tian J, Han B, et al. α2δ-1-NMDAR1 complex in the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus mediates anxiety-induced sympathetic hyperactivity[J]. Clin Auton Res, 2026, 36(1):37-52. doi:10.1007/s10286-025-01167-z.
[13]	丁艳, 华娜, 王振盛. 快速时效管理模式在急诊科预检分诊中的应用[J]. 河北医药, 2024, 46(3):474-476,480. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-7386.2024.03.037.
[14]	康霞. 急诊快速反应团队应用于严重创伤患者的护理时效研究[J]. 护理管理杂志, 2020, 20(5):364-368. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-315x.2020.05.013.
[15]	Montori-Palacín E, Ramon J, Compta Y, et al. Quick diagnosis units: predictors of time to diagnosis and costs[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2020, 99(30):e21241. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000021241.
[16]	戴乐萍, 陶彤, 陈磊. 时效性激励护理模式对AECOPD伴呼吸衰竭患者肺功能及肺康复训练依从性的影响[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志, 2023, 32(11):1586-1589. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1008-8849.2023.11.026.
[17]	李燕, 王瑞凤, 顾丽莹. 基于时效性激励理论的情志护理干预对糖尿病足感染患者情绪状态、自我效能及自我管理行为的影响[J]. 吉林医学, 2023, 44(10):2992-2996. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-0412.2023.10.097.
[18]	詹娟梅, 徐海鹰, 吕青青, 等. 时效性激励理论的健康教育在高血压患者健康管理中的应用效果观察[J]. 浙江医学, 2023, 45(19):2109-2112. doi:10.12056/j.issn.1006-2785.2023.45.19.2023-1178.
[19]	张慧媛. 优质护理在ICU机械通气患者行床边纤维支气管镜吸痰护理中的开展价值[J]. 医学理论与实践, 2020, 33(7):1168-1169. doi:10.19381/j.issn.1001-7585.2020.07.070.
[20]	蔡婷婷, 梁永明, 江其影, 等. 床旁纤维支气管镜气道维护对ICU重症合并VAP患者30-d临床结局的影响[J]. 江苏医药, 2023, 49(11):1167-1169. doi:10.19460/j.cnki.0253-3685.2023.11.020.

特征	观察组(50例)	对照组(50例)	统计检验值	P值
年龄(岁,$\bar{x}±s$)	69.45±4.54	69.49±4.35	t=-0.045	0.964
性别[例(构成比,%)]			χ²=0.160	0.689
男性	22(44.00)	20(40.00)
女性	28(56.00)	30(60.00)
住院病程(d,$\bar{x}±s$)	6.72±1.85	6.86±1.72	t=-0.394	0.695
临床诊断			χ²=0.045	0.832
重症肺炎	24(48.00)	22(44.00)
慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重	18(36.00)	19(38.00)
重症支气管哮喘	6(12.00)	7(14.00)
其他危重型肺部疾病	2(4.00)	2(4.00)
合并症[例(构成比,%)]
有高血压	17(34.00)	16(32.00)	χ²=0.045	0.832
无高血压	33(66.00)	34(68.00)
有糖尿病	17(34.00)	14(28.00)	χ²=0.421	0.517
无糖尿病	33(66.00)	36(72.00)

组别	操作时间(min)	气喘恢复时间(d)	咳嗽恢复时间(d)	住院时间(d)
观察组(50例)	20.66±2.84	12.34±1.66	12.38±1.63	23.22±1.96
对照组(50例)	41.48±2.44	20.36±3.34	21.32±3.43	30.94±1.97
t值	-39.586	-15.193	-16.646	-19.618
P值	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	观察组(50例)	对照组(50例)	t值	P值
RR(次/min)
干预前	28.82±1.98	28.94±2.09	-0.295	0.769
干预后	18.34±1.70^a	22.70±1.17^a	-15.305	<0.001
TV(ml/kg)
干预前	6.44±0.50	6.54±0.50	-0.995	0.322
干预后	8.44±0.50^a	7.52±0.51^a	9.144	<0.001
AP(mmHg)
干预前	7.50±0.51	7.58±0.50	-0.797	0.427
干预后	10.54±0.50^a	8.44±0.50^a	20.898	<0.001

组别	观察组(50例)	对照组(50例)	t值	P值
pH值
干预前	7.25±0.05	7.24±0.06	0.905	0.368
干预后	7.41±0.04^a	7.33±0.05^a	8.828	<0.001
PaO₂(mmHg)
干预前	44.28±2.77	45.34±3.22	-1.763	0.081
干预后	78.38±2.19^a	64.06±2.65^a	29.467	<0.001
PaCO₂(mmHg)
干预前	68.20±2.52	68.50±2.16	-0.640	0.524
干预后	42.44±1.51^a	51.28±1.94^a	-25.415	<0.001
SaO₂(%)
干预前	82.36±1.71	82.80±1.76	-1.267	0.208
干预后	96.16±1.18^a	89.84±1.42^a	24.175	<0.001

组别	SAS		SDS
组别	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后
观察组(50例)	67.50±1.54	36.32±2.64^a	67.80±1.78	36.08±2.36^a
对照组(50例)	67.52±1.81	47.50±1.74^a	67.44±1.61	47.22±1.50^a
t值	-0.059	-25.015	1.061	-28.129
P值	0.953	<0.001	0.292	<0.001