【摘要】：目的:本研究擬在通過(guò)德?tīng)柗品ê蛯哟畏治龇?gòu)建神經(jīng)內(nèi)科專(zhuān)科護(hù)士核心能力指標(biāo)體系,為神經(jīng)內(nèi)科專(zhuān)科護(hù)士的課程設(shè)置、培養(yǎng)方法及認(rèn)證等提供參考依據(jù),有針對(duì)性培養(yǎng)專(zhuān)科護(hù)理人才,提高護(hù)理服務(wù)質(zhì)量,促進(jìn)神經(jīng)內(nèi)科專(zhuān)科護(hù)理的建設(shè)和發(fā)展。方法:本研究通過(guò)文獻(xiàn)研究、問(wèn)卷調(diào)查、頭腦風(fēng)暴法、半結(jié)構(gòu)式訪談、德?tīng)柗品ǖ葮?gòu)建神經(jīng)內(nèi)科專(zhuān)科護(hù)士核心能力指標(biāo)體系的各級(jí)維度和條目,計(jì)算函詢(xún)專(zhuān)家的權(quán)威系數(shù)、積極系數(shù)、專(zhuān)家意見(jiàn)的集中程度以及協(xié)調(diào)系數(shù),通過(guò)層次分析法確立各指標(biāo)的權(quán)重系數(shù),最終形成神經(jīng)內(nèi)科專(zhuān)科護(hù)士核心能力指標(biāo)體系。結(jié)果:通過(guò)2輪專(zhuān)家函詢(xún)構(gòu)建的神經(jīng)內(nèi)科專(zhuān)科護(hù)士核心能力指標(biāo)體系包括6個(gè)一級(jí)指標(biāo)、19個(gè)二級(jí)指標(biāo)、74個(gè)三級(jí)指標(biāo)。第一輪、第二輪問(wèn)卷回收率分別為95.23%和100%,均70%,專(zhuān)家的積極性高。本研究的專(zhuān)家權(quán)威系數(shù)(Cr)為0.935,專(zhuān)家判斷系數(shù)(Ca)為0.90,專(zhuān)家熟悉程度(Cs)為0.97,研究認(rèn)為專(zhuān)家權(quán)威系數(shù)(Cr)≥0.7說(shuō)明專(zhuān)家的信度較高,因此我們邀請(qǐng)的函詢(xún)專(zhuān)家權(quán)威程度高,函詢(xún)結(jié)果可靠。專(zhuān)家意見(jiàn)集中程度用各級(jí)指標(biāo)重要性賦值的均數(shù)、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差、滿分比和變異系數(shù)來(lái)表示,本研究各指標(biāo)均數(shù)在4.2~5之間,每個(gè)指標(biāo)的均數(shù)均3.5;標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差在0~0.83之間,滿分比在40%~100%,有93.75%的指標(biāo)滿分比超過(guò)60%,變異系數(shù)在0~0.2之間,變異系數(shù)均0.25;專(zhuān)家意見(jiàn)集中程度較高;各級(jí)指標(biāo)的專(zhuān)家協(xié)調(diào)程度分析顯示,一級(jí)、二級(jí)、三級(jí)指標(biāo)的肯德?tīng)柡椭C系數(shù)(Kendall W)分別為0.298、0.352、0.201,經(jīng)卡方檢驗(yàn)計(jì)算出P值均0.05,表明具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。經(jīng)層次分析法計(jì)算出的一級(jí)指標(biāo)權(quán)重值(Wi)前三位分別是“臨床專(zhuān)科知識(shí)、技能”、“臨床護(hù)理思維能力”、“管理與執(zhí)行能力”。二級(jí)指標(biāo)組合權(quán)重值(Wij)前三位分別是“掌握神經(jīng)內(nèi)科常見(jiàn)疾病基礎(chǔ)醫(yī)學(xué)知識(shí):定義、病因、臨床表現(xiàn)、治療原則”、“掌握神經(jīng)內(nèi)科疾病的癥狀體征的護(hù)理:評(píng)估、病情觀察、治療要點(diǎn)、護(hù)理措施”、“評(píng)判性思維”。結(jié)論:本研究專(zhuān)家一致性好、專(zhuān)家權(quán)威程度高,函詢(xún)結(jié)果可靠,可以為進(jìn)一步研究神經(jīng)內(nèi)科專(zhuān)科護(hù)士課程設(shè)置、培養(yǎng)方法及認(rèn)證等提供參考依據(jù)。對(duì)一級(jí)指標(biāo)權(quán)重賦值排序可見(jiàn)專(zhuān)科護(hù)士核心能力中“臨床專(zhuān)科知識(shí)、技能”、“臨床護(hù)理思維能力”以及“管理與執(zhí)行能力”是重點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:Objective: to construct the core competence index system of nurses in neurology department by Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process (AHP), so as to provide reference for curriculum design, training method and certification of nurses in neurology department. Training specialized nursing talents, improving the quality of nursing service and promoting the construction and development of specialized nursing in neurology department. Methods: through literature research, questionnaire investigation, brainstorming, semi-structured interview, Delphi's method, the dimensions and items of core competence index system of nurses in neurology department were constructed, and the authority coefficient of inquiring experts was calculated. Positive coefficient, concentration degree of expert opinion and coordination coefficient, the weight coefficient of each index was established by analytic hierarchy process, and finally the index system of core competence of nurses in neurology department was formed. Results: the core competence index system of nurses in neurology department was constructed by two rounds of expert inquiry. The index system included 6 first-grade indexes, 19 second-class indexes and 74 third-grade indexes. In the first round and the second round, the recovery rates were 95.23% and 100, respectively. The expert authority coefficient (Cr) is 0.935, the expert judgement coefficient (Ca) is 0.90, and the expert familiarity degree (Cs) is 0.97. The study shows that the expert authority coefficient (Cr) 鈮，

本文編號(hào)：2159788