Study On Comparing The Effect Of Two Different Nursing Intervention Methods To Alleviate Pain Of Pronatis Caused By Heel Prick

In recent years,pain has been the concern of more and more people as the sixsign of life.The American academy of pediatrics and the American association of painproposes:“pain is a kind of subjective feeling uncomfortable,it is not only a simplefeeling,but also a synthesis reaction process of an experience, anemotion,acknowledge and behavior As the world birth rate of pronatis more and morehigh,the study found that there are many adapt to the bad ofsports,emotions,acknowledge and so on,great impact on its way of life in thefuture.Part of the pronatis who’s gestational age less than24weeks will undergoabout500pain when in hospitalization.This study is mainly about pronatis,throughthe nursing intervention on three pronatis groups,to discuss how to alleviate the painwhen in heel prick.ObjectTo observe behavior changes and pain scores of pronatis during the heel prickto collect blood.Alleviate the pain of pronatis from heel prick when intervene withglucose(25％) feeding (GS) and non-nutritive sucking (NNS). Methods120pronatis from January to September were randomized into threegroups,which accepted nursing intervention as non-nutritive sucking,glucose(25％)feeding(intervention group),and the other is control group.There were40cases ineach group,observe and record the marks of NIPS and NFCS of every groupduring the intervention and every minute of whole five minutes after theintervention.To evaluate and record the marks of crying form,respiratorypatterns,upper limbs action,lower limbs action,wakefulness and facial expressionactivities,observed the heart rate and transcutaneous oxygen.Results1.HR: There were no significant before the intervention(P>0.05).During theheel-prick the HR of the three group were significantly faster.The HR rise of thecontrol group was lower than the GS group and NNS group(P<0.01).One andtwo minute after the intervention,the HR rise of the control group was mainlylower than the NNS group and GS group(P<0.01).There were no significant threeminute gfter the intervention and after the two minute(P>0.05). After the4minute,the HR of the three group gradually returned to normal.2.Percutaneous oxygen: There were significant during the heel-prick andafter1minute, but the numerical of NNS group and GS group was no significantafter3minute.3. The score of the NIPS and NFCS:There was significant difference of thepain scores between the three group during the intervention.The pain mark ofNNS group and GS group was obvious lower than the controlgroup.(F=41.96,P<0.05;F=29.741,P<0.05),but there were no significantdifference between the two interventions(P>0.05).4.There was significant difference after the intervention lasted oneminutes.(P<0.05).after one minute there were no significant difference. Conclusions1.The NNS and GS can lower the HR when the pronatis were accepting theheel-prick.2.The NNS and GS can improve the percutaneous oxygen when the pronatis wereaccepting the heel-prick.3.The NNS and GS can lower the score of NIPS and NFCS when the pronatiswere accepting the heel-prick.