Shao XL, Wang YZ, Chen XH, Ding WJ. Impact of failure mode and effects analysis-based emergency management on the effectiveness of craniocerebral injury treatment. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(2): 554-562 [PMID: 35097081 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i2.554]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Wen-Juan Ding, BM BCh, Chief Nurse, Department of Emergency Surgery Ward 48, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 188 Shizi Street Gusu District, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China. dwjsuzhou@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Emergency Medicine
Article-Type of This Article
Observational Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Jan 14, 2022; 10(2): 554-562 Published online Jan 14, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i2.554
Table 1 Comparison of emergency care between the two groups (mean ± SD, min)
Group
No. of cases
Pre-hospital emergency response time
Time spent on admission
Time spent on imaging report
Time spent on test report
Study Group
42
9.13 ± 2.37
2.39 ± 0.44
21.15 ± 4.44
32.19 ± 6.23
Control group
42
12.78 ± 4.06
3.58 ± 0.71
33.49 ± 5.51
50.41 ± 11.45
t value
5.032
9.233
11.301
9.059
P value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 2 Comparison of the levels of inflammatory stress indicators before and after the intervention in the two groups (mean ± SD)
Group
Number of cases
IL-6 (pg/mL)
CRP (mg/L)
PCT (ng/mL)
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
Study Group
42
78.71 ± 27.59
17.35 ± 5.33
19.80 ± 6.77
2.27 ± 0.56
3.66 ± 1.82
0.22 ± 0.07
Control group
42
81.31 ± 32.11
30.15 ± 12.38
21.29 ± 8.02
3.13 ± 0.77
3.95 ± 2.11
0.38 ± 0.12
t value
0.398
6.154
0.920
5.854
0.674
7.464
P value
0.692
0.000
0.360
0.000
0.502
0.000
Table 3 Comparison of complication rates between the two groups, n (%)
Group
Number of cases
Electrolyte disturbance
Central hyperthermia
Pulmonary infection
Brain hernia
Total incidence
Study Group
42
1 (2.38)
2 (4.76)
1 (2.38)
0 (0.00)
4 (9.52)
Control group
42
4 (9.52)
3 (7.14)
3 (7.14)
1 (2.38)
11 (26.19)
χ2 value
3.977
P value
0.046
Table 4 Comparison of the prognosis of the two groups, n (%)
Group
Number of cases
Good
Moderate disability
Severe disability
Vegetative state
Death from illness
Study Group
42
16 (38.10)
12 (28.57)
11 (26.19)
2 (4.76)
1 (2.38)
Control group
42
8 (19.05)
10 (23.81)
14 (33.33)
7 (16.67)
3 (7.14)
χ2 value
2.479
P value
0.013
Table 5 Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups, n (%)
Group
Number of cases
Highly satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Unsatisfied
Satisfaction with the intervention
Study group
42
29 (69.05)
11 (26.19)
2 (4.76)
40 (95.24)
Control group
42
21 (50.00)
12 (28.57)
9 (21.43)
33 (78.57)
χ2 value
5.126
P value
0.024
Citation: Shao XL, Wang YZ, Chen XH, Ding WJ. Impact of failure mode and effects analysis-based emergency management on the effectiveness of craniocerebral injury treatment. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(2): 554-562