Application of Multidisciplinary Intervention Model in Nursing of Older patients with Diabetes

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the application of multidisciplinary treatment (MDT) model in nursing of elderly patients with diabetes.Methods A total of 166 elderly diabetic patients were retrospectively selected. They were randomly and equally divided into the MDT group and the control group. The patients in the control group were treated with the traditional nursing method. And the patients in the MDT group were treated with a multidisciplinary team. The hospitalization time, hospital costs, incidence of diabetes-related complications, and nursing satisfaction were analyzed and compared.Results The hospitalization time and hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the MDT group than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The satisfaction rate of MDT group (98.3%) was significantly higher compared with the control group (86.6%; P < 0.05). Besides, the incidence of complications was significantly lower in the MDT group (10.8%) when comparing to the control group (40.1%; P < 0.05).Conclusion The application of MDT model in elderly diabetic care was superior to traditional routine nursing model, shortening the hospital stay and hospitalization costs, decreasing the incidence of complications and improving the nursing satisfaction of patients and their families, thereby improving the long-term prognosis and life quality of elderly diabetic patients.

Dyadic psycho‐social interventions for stroke survivors and family caregivers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Three papers (Boter, 2004; Burton & Gibbon, 2005; Ostwald et al, 2013) did not explain the method of random sequence generation in detail, two papers (Deyhoul et al, 2020; Mei et al, 2017) did not specify how to implement allocation hiding and three papers (Forster & Young, 1996; Johnston et al, 2009; Tielemans et al, 2015) did not describe these two parts in detail, which indicated the possibility of selection bias in these studies. Fourteen papers (Boter, 2004; Burton & Gibbon, 2005; Deng et al, 2020; Deyhoul et al, 2020; Eames et al, 2013; Forster & Young, 1996; Johnston et al, 2009; Lin et al, 2022; Mei et al, 2017; Minshall et al, 2020; Ostwald et al, 2013; Tielemans et al, 2015; Wang et al, 2015; Zhao, 2021) did not blind the study subjects and/or the intervention provider and had a high risk of implementation bias. One paper (Clark et al, 2003) did not mention whether the study subjects or intervention providers were blinded, indicating possible implementation bias.…”

“…One paper (Deyhoul et al, 2020) did not use assessments of outcome measures that were done by blinded raters, which implied a risk of measurement bias. Three papers (Clark et al, 2003; Zhao, 2021) did not account for the loss to follow‐up, and their outcome data were incomplete. Seven papers (Boter, 2004; Burton & Gibbon, 2005; Clark et al, 2003; Deyhoul et al, 2020; Forster & Young, 1996; Johnston et al, 2009; Ostwald et al, 2013) did not provide relevant information about the study protocol, suggesting that there may have been selective reporting of findings.…”

“…The intervention providers were mainly nurses, followed by psychologists and therapists. Eight studies had a theoretical basis for the intervention program (Clark et al, 2003; Deng et al, 2020; Deyhoul et al, 2020; Eames et al, 2013; Forster & Young, 1996; Ostwald et al, 2013; Wang et al, 2015; Zhao, 2021). Psychological interventions include cognitive behavioural therapy, the modified reminiscence therapy, psychological guidance, peer support and motivational interviewing, meanwhile, social interventions include course training, health education manuals, mailing messages, informational intervention and behavioural skills intervention.…”

“…Twelve studies inquired into the effect of dyadic psycho‐social interventions on the care burden of stroke caregivers, among which seven studies could be included in the meta‐analysis (Deng et al, 2020; Deyhoul et al, 2020; Eames et al, 2013; Minshall et al, 2020; Ostwald et al, 2013; Wang et al, 2015; Zhao, 2021) Figure 4 (a). Five were synthesized without meta‐analysis (Boter, 2004; Burton & Gibbon, 2005; Lin et al, 2022; Mei et al, 2017; Tielemans et al, 2015).…”

“…Fourteen papers (Boter, 2004;Burton & Gibbon, 2005;Deng et al, 2020;Deyhoul et al, 2020;Eames et al, 2013;Forster & Young, 1996;Johnston et al, 2009;Lin et al, 2022;Mei et al, 2017;Minshall et al, 2020;Ostwald et al, 2013;Tielemans et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2015;Zhao, 2021) did not blind the study subjects and/or the intervention provider and had a high risk of implementation bias. One paper (Clark et al, 2003) did not mention whether the study subjects or intervention providers were blinded, indicating possible implementation bias.…”