Objective To exploring the practical experience of teaching mode in the standardized training of anesthesia nurses, and providing scientific reference and practical basis for the construction of a professional talent training system for anesthesia nurses. Methods The same group of anesthesia nurses from the Department of Anesthesiology of West China Tianfu Hospital, Sichuan University, from September 2022 to December 2024 were selected. The period from September 2022 to October 2023 served as the control group, while the period from November 2023 to December 2024 was the experimental group. The control group received conventional training, while the experimental group received conventional training plus interprofessional education training. The comprehensive abilities (theoretical knowledge assessment, operational skill assessment, and anesthesiologists’ satisfaction) of the nurses in the two groups and the quality of anesthesia during the perioperative period were compared. Results A total of 34 nurses were included, with 32 in the experimental group and 34 in the control group. The theoretical knowledge assessment [(90.54±5.87) vs. (82.40±8.71) points], operational skill assessment [(96.34±1.66) vs. (91.63±6.89) points], and anesthesiologists’ satisfaction [(4.53±0.54) vs. (4.14±0.44) points] in the experimental group were all higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). Except for the incidence of severe anaphylactic reactions during anesthesia (P>0.05), there were statistically significant differences in other terms of perioperative anesthesia quality between the two groups (P<0.05). The incidences of occupational exposure (1 vs. 3 cases) and patients’ skin avulsion (1 vs. 4 cases) was lower in the experimental group than in the control group, but the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05); neither group experienced serious adverse events such as medication errors. Conclusion Interprofessional education can effectively improve the comprehensive ability of anesthesia nurses and perioperative anesthesia quality, which is worthy of promotion in continuing education and training.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the application of dexmedetomidine for moderate sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography.MethodsPatients who were planned to undergo endoscopic ultrasonography in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from February to June 2019 were randomly divided into dexmedetomidine group (trial group) and propofol group (control group). The basic conditions, success rate of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis and treatment, sedation-related adverse events, implementation of airway management, postoperative comfort evaluation and endoscopic physician satisfaction score of the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 120 patients were eventually enrolled, 60 in each group. There was no significant difference in the basic conditions of the two groups (P>0.05). The success rate of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis and treatment in two groups were 100%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bucking, apnea and bradycardia between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of hypotension (15.0% vs. 31.7%), hypoxemia (6.7% vs.20.0%) in the trial group was lower than those in the control group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The proportion of patients in the trial group who performed airway management was lower than that in the control group (1.7% vs. 28.3%), and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative pain score, the first time to get out of bed and postoperative 15-item quality of recovery questionnaire score between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of nausea and vomiting at 6 hours after operation (48.3% vs. 3.3%) and 24 hours after operation (10.0% vs. 0.0%) and the time required for recovery of gastrointestinal function ［(201.4±178.4) vs. (148.5±75.7) min］ in the trial group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The median (the lower and upper quartile) of comfort score of patients and satisfaction score of endoscopic physicians were 8 (6, 10) and 8 (7, 9) in the trial group, respectively, and were 10 (9, 10) and 9 (8, 10) in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05).ConclusionModerate sedation with dexmedetomidine could provide good sedative and analgesic effects in endoscopic ultrasonography. It has little effect on respiration and blood pressure, but the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were higher than deep sedation with propofol. And patient comfort and endoscopic physician satisfaction also need to be improved.