Preventive of deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients after peripherally inserted central catheter catheterization using a diversified comprehensive teaching model

Table 1 Comparison and statistics of general information, (mean ± SD)/n

Group	Experimental group	Control group	χ2/t	P value
Gender (male/female)	25/25	26/24	0.04	0.84
Patients’ age (years old)	36.91 ± 4.35	36.30 ± 4.50	0.69	0.49
Height (cm)	169.22 ± 7.46	168.76 ± 7.55	0.30	0.76
Weight (kg)	72.59 ± 5.02	72.00 ± 5.18	0.58	0.56
Duration of disease (months)	3.55 ± 0.54	3.72 ± 0.53	1.59	0.12
Smoking history	19	17	0.17	0.68
Drinking history	28	30	0.16	0.69
Hypertension	3	5	0.83	0.36
Diabetes	1	2	0.39	0.53
Hyperlipidemia	4	2	0.95	0.33
Age of medical care personnel (years old)	31.00 ± 4.38	30.56 ± 4.41	0.50	0.62
Qualification of medical staff (years)	5.16 ± 1.30	5.11 ± 1.32	0.19	0.85

Table 2 Comparison of incidence rates of deep vein thrombosis and other adverse reactions after treatment, n (%)

Group	DVT	Infection	Phlebitis	Catheter shedding	Other adverse reactions
Experimental group	1 (2)	3	1	0	8%
Control group	7 (14)	5	3	4	24%
χ2	4.89				4.76
P value	0.03				0.03

DVT: Deep vein thrombosis.

Table 3 Comparison of patient satisfaction

Group	Fully satisfied	Satisfied	Dissatisfied	Total satisfaction
Experimental group	26	18	6	88%
Control group	19	15	16	68%
χ2				5.83
P value				0.02

Table 4 Comparison of medical staff’s test marks (points), mean ± SD

Group	Theoretical knowledge	Practical ability	Daily work	Total marks
Experimental group	8.59 ± 0.88	9.00 ± 0.74	8.12 ± 1.01	86.32 ± 7.71
Control group	7.10 ± 0.62	7.58 ± 0.66	7.33 ± 0.59	78.87 ± 7.02
t	9.79	10.13	4.78	5.05
P value	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 5 Comparison of medical staff satisfaction with teaching model

Group	Fully satisfied	Satisfied	Dissatisfied	Total satisfaction
Experimental group	35	15	0	100%
Control group	27	14	9	82%
χ2				9.89
P value				0.002