Benefits of multidisciplinary collaborative care team-based nursing services in treating pressure injury wounds in cerebral infarction patients

Table 1 Comparison of Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, points)

Group	Number of cases	Before intervention	After 2 wk of intervention	After 4 wk of intervention
MDCC group	31	11.19 ± 2.46	6.63 ± 1.97	3.11 ± 1.04
CNC group	31	12.01 ± 2.79	8.78 ± 2.13	4.96 ± 1.35
t value		1.227	4.126	6.044
P value		0.225	0.000	0.000

MDCC: Multidisciplinary collaborative care; CNC: Conventional nursing care.

Table 2 Comparison of the healing effect between the two groups, n (%)

Group	Number of cases	Healed	Wound healing rate	Improved	Ineffective	Wound healing rate
MDCC group	31	21 (67.74)	9 (29.03)	1 (3.23)	0 (0.00)	30 (96.77)
CNC group	31	14 (45.16)	11 (35.48)	5 (16.13)	1 (3.23)	25 (80.65)
χ2 value						4.026
P value						0.045

MDCC: Multidisciplinary collaborative care; CNC: Conventional nursing care.

Table 3 Comparison of Self-Perceived Burden Score between the two groups (mean ± SD, points)

Time	Group	Number of cases	Emotional factors	Economic factors	Physical factors
Pre-intervention	MDCC group	31	21.15 ± 3.11	9.88 ± 2.15	8.19 ± 2.23
	CNC group	31	20.76 ± 2.95	10.15 ± 2.23	8.49 ± 2.45
	t value		0.507	0.485	0.504
	P value		0.614	0.629	0.616
After 4 wk of intervention	MDCC group	31	13.51 ± 1.88	6.38 ± 1.44	5.37 ± 1.08
	CNC group	31	16.89 ± 2.05	7.99 ± 1.68	7.06 ± 1.19
	t value		6.766	4.051	5.855
	P value		0.000	0.000	0.000

MDCC: Multidisciplinary collaborative care; CNC: Conventional nursing care.

Table 4 Comparison of intervention satisfaction between the two groups, n (%)

Group	Number of cases	Highly satisfied	Fairly satisfied	Unsatisfied	Satisfaction with the intervention
MDCC group	31	19 (61.29)	10 (32.26)	2 (6.45)	29 (93.55)
CNC group	31	12 (38.71)	11 (35.48)	8 (25.81)	23 (74.19)
χ2 value					4.292
P value					0.038

MDCC: Multidisciplinary collaborative care; CNC: Conventional nursing care.