Association between a comprehensive nursing model and rehabilitation outcomes in patients with acute pancreatitis: a retrospective cohort study

Patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) often face a variety of long-term complications during the rehabilitation period, and the traditional nursing model has deficiencies in systematicity and continuity. As a patient-centered, multidisciplinary collaborative holistic intervention strategy, comprehensive nursing model has significant effects in the management of other chronic diseases, but its association with AP rehabilitation outcomes remains unclear. To evaluate the association between a comprehensive nursing model and rehabilitation outcomes in patients with AP during the recovery period, particularly its relationship with the incidence of complications, symptom recovery, mental health, quality of life, treatment compliance, and readmission rate. A total of 198 AP patients hospitalized from January 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 were screened, of whom 136 were retrospectively included. They were divided into the comprehensive care group ( n = 64) and the conventional care group ( n = 72) based on nursing records. The comprehensive care group received structured intervention led by a multidisciplinary team (MDT), while the conventional care group received standard guidance. The primary outcomes were the incidence of complications and 6-month readmission. Secondary outcomes included symptom resolution time, anxiety and depression scores (SAS/SDS), quality of life (SF-36), and treatment compliance. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust for age, sex, etiology, and disease severity. The incidence of any complication in the comprehensive nursing group was lower than that in the conventional care group (7.8% vs. 20.8%; absolute risk difference − 13.0%, 95% CI: −24.5% to − 1.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11–0.94, P = 0.038). The disappearance time of abdominal pain (5.59 ± 1.5 days vs. 7.68 ± 1.8 days, mean difference − 2.09 days, 95% CI: −2.65 to − 1.53, P < 0.001) and abdominal distension (6.88 ± 1.6 days vs. 8.22 ± 1.9 days, mean difference − 1.34 days, 95% CI: −2.03 to − 0.65, P < 0.001) and the recovery time of serum/urine amylase (8.69 ± 1.5 days vs. 11.06 ± 1.6 days, mean difference − 2.37 days, 95% CI: −2.96 to − 1.78, P < 0.001) were shorter. After 6 months of follow-up, the SAS score and SDS score of the comprehensive nursing group were lower than those of the conventional care group, while the SF-36 dimension scores were higher (all P < 0.001). The good rate of treatment compliance in diet, medication, and return visit in the comprehensive nursing group was higher (all P < 0.05). The 6-month readmission rate was lower in the comprehensive care group (4.69% vs. 16.67%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.78, P = 0.036; adjusted HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10–0.92, P = 0.035) In this single-center retrospective cohort, comprehensive nursing was associated with lower complication incidence, shorter symptom resolution times, better psychological status and quality of life, higher treatment adherence, and lower 6-month readmission. Because allocation was non-randomized and unmeasured confounding likely exists, these findings represent associations rather than causal effects and warrant evaluation in a prospective randomized trial. Not applicable. This was a retrospective observational study analyzing routinely collected clinical data from a quality improvement initiative. No prospective intervention allocation or trial protocol was registered.