| ObjectiveBy collecting the data of patients diagnosed with sudden deafness in our hospital from 2015 to 2019,compared the curative effect of clinical pathway and non clinical pathway,and discussed the significance of clinical pathway in the treatment of sudden deafness patients,so as to provide reference for clinical treatment of sudden deafness.MethodsRetrospective analysis of our hospital into the clinical pathway of 543 patients,and non clinical pathway of 99 patients with clinical data.SPSS 18.0 was used for statistical analysis of all data.T test was used for measurement data in clinical data.Measurement data is expressed in Mean ± standard deviation,and chi square test was used for enumeration data.P<0.05 represents the difference of results,which is statistically significant.The patients’ gender,age,intervention time after onset,hospitalization days,hospitalization expenses,tinnitus,ear blockage,vertigo,hearing curve type and hearing recovery degree were statistically analyzed.To observe the role of clinical pathway.ResultsA total of 642 cases were collected,including 257 males and 385 females.The ratio of male to female was 1:1.5.The average age of patients was(45.83±11.99)years.There were 318 cases of left ear,306 cases of right ear and 18 cases of bilateral ear,a total of 660 ears.Among them,there were 543 cases in the clinical pathway group,271 cases in the left ear,259 cases in the right ear and 13 cases in the bilateral ear.The average hospitalization days was(7.00 ±2.50),the average hospitalization expenses was(9284.03±184.54)yuan,the satisfaction of hospitalization was(91.34%),and the total effective rate was 46.58%.In the non clinical pathway group,there were 99 cases,including 47 cases in the left ear,47 cases in the right ear,and 5 cases in the bilateral ears.The average hospitalization days was(9.44±4.54)days,the average hospitalization expenses was(10448.52 ±435.14)yuan,and the satisfaction of hospitalization was(80.81%).The total effective rate was 49.04%.There was no significant difference in the efficacy between the two groups.The average hospitalization days and hospitalization expenses in the clinical pathway group were significantly less than those in the non clinical pathway group,and patients’satisfaction was higher.Conclusion1.Clinical pathway can provide better medical quality.2.Clinical pathway can significantly shorten the length of hospital stay and hospitalization costs.3.There was no significant difference between clinical pathway group and non clinical pathway group. |
