ObjectiveTo set up the evaluation form for classroom teaching quality in nursing humanities concern education, in order to conduct the evaluation on nursing teachers in their teaching of humanistic concern in their nursing class teaching. MethodsWe applied the Delphi approach to consult 16 nursing experts to screen the evaluation indicators combining with the method of dispersion degree. Analytic hierarchy process was carried out to determine the indicator weight to establish the evaluation form. Then we used the form to investigate a small sample of 37 nursing teachers. According to the test results, we checked the reliability and validity of the evaluation form. ResultsThe evaluation form was finally determined. It consisted of five level-1 indicators as well as 23 level-2 indicators. The results of Cranach's α showed that the internal consistency reliability and sensitivity of the evaluation form were very high. The results of Spearman correlation analysis showed that the construction of the evaluation form was quite reasonable. The results of factor analysis showed that the discriminant validity of the evaluation form was quite good. ConclusionThe evaluation form is true, credible and reasonably built. It may be used for self-assessment by the teachers, mutual evaluation as well as evaluation of teachers by leaders or experts for the assessment of humanistic teaching in nursing classes.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS) with propofol and remifentanil for colonoscopy in elderly patients. MethodsSixty elderly patients preparing for painless colonoscopy between May and September 2015 were randomly allocated into PCAS group and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) group with 30 patients in each. In the PCAS group, the mixture of remifentanil and propofol at 0.6 mL/(kg·h) was pumped continuously after an initial bolus of 0.05 mL/kg mixture. The examination began three minutes after the infusion was finished. Patients could press the self-control button. Each bolus delivered 1 mL and the lockout time was 1 minute. In the TIVA group, patients received fentanyl at 1 μg/kg and midazolam at 0.02 mg/kg intravenously, and accepted intravenous propofol at 0.8-1.0 mg/kg two minutes later. The examination began when the patients lost consciousness. ResultsA significant decline of mean arterial blood pressure was detected within each group after anesthesia (P < 0.05). The decrease of mean blood pressure in the TIVA group was more significant than that in the PCAS group (P < 0.05). The heart rate, pulse oxygen saturation and respiratory rate decreased significantly after anesthesia in both the two groups (P < 0.05), while end-tidal CO2 increased after anesthesia without any significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The induction time, time to insert the colonoscope to ileocecus, and total examination time were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). As for the time from the end of examination to OAA/S score of 5 and to Aldrete score of 9, the PCAS group was significantly shorter than the TIVA group (P < 0.05). ConclusionPCAS with remifentanil and propofol can provide sufficient analgesia, better hemodynamic stability, lighter sedation, and faster recovery compared with TIVA.