Effects of emergency nursing interventions on the outcome of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomized controlled trial

With the development of healthcare concepts, nursing interventions are gradually being emphasized in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This study aims to explore the impact of emergency nursing interventions on outcomes for patients with COPD. Eighty-four patients with COPD were included in the analysis, the control group received routine nursing (42 cases), and the research group received emergency nursing (42 cases). We compared the pulmonary functions of the 2 groups: forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume in the first second; blood gas parameters: partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood, partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood; dyspnea: modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) score; quality of life: COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score; exercise tolerance: 6-minute walk distance; and mental status: self-rating depression scale (SDS) and self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) scores. P < .05 indicates statistically significant difference. After the intervention, forced vital capacity (3.93 ± 0.90 L vs 2.95 ± 0.85 L), peak expiratory flow (7.30 ± 1.16 L/min vs 6.39 ± 1.13 L/min), and forced expiratory volume in the first second (3.59 ± 0.66 L vs 2.83 ± 0.83 L) levels in the research group were significantly better than those in the control group (P < .001). Partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (86.56 ± 5.74 mm Hg vs 78.16 ± 5.91 mm Hg) was significantly higher and partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (54.09 ± 5.08 mm Hg vs 69.26 ± 7.58 mm Hg) was significantly lower in the research group compared to the control group (P < .001). The mMRC and CAT scores were reduced in both groups, and the mMRC (1.62 ± 0.66 vs 2.21 ± 0.65, P < .001) and CAT (16.64 ± 3.93 vs 19.29 ± 4.31, P = .004) scores were significantly lower in the research group than in the control group. The 6-minute walk distance (449.83 ± 47.49 vs 407.79 ± 44.98, P < .001) was significantly longer in the research group than in the control group. In addition, SDS and SAS scores decreased in both groups after the intervention, and SDS (37.38 ± 4.50 vs 41.93 ± 4.05, P < .001) and SAS (38.21 ± 4.04 vs 42.14 ± 3.80, P < .001) scores were also significantly lower in the research group than in the control group. Emergency nursing intervention significantly improved pulmonary function, quality of life, exercise tolerance, and psychological health of COPD patients, which has important clinical promotion value.