传统手工清洗、含超声的清洗消毒器及减压沸腾清洗机在消毒供应中心腔镜器械清洗中的应用观察OA
Application Observation of Traditional Manual Cleaning,Ultrasonic Cleaning Disinfectors,and Reduced Pressure Boiling Cleaning Machines in the Cleaning of Endoscopic Instruments in the Sterilization Supply Center
目的 对比分析传统手工清洗、含超声的清洗消毒器及减压沸腾清洗机在消毒供应中心腔镜器械清洗中的应用效果.方法 将商丘市第一人民医院消毒供应中心 2022 年 2 月至 2023 年 8 月处理的 800 件腔镜器械作为研究对象.依据该器械实际清洗方式进行分组,其中 200 件予以传统手工清洗纳入作为A组研究对象,300 件予以超声清洗消毒器清洗纳入作为B组研究对象,另外 300 件予以减压沸腾清洗机清洗作为C组研究对象.对比三组器械清洗合格率、器械灭菌合格率、清洗时间、消毒成本及各科室对器械清洗的满意度.结果 A组器械清洗合格件数为 180 件,合格率为 90.00%,器械灭菌合格例数为 180 件,合格率为 90.00%;B组器械清洗合格件数为 289 件,合格率为 96.33%,器械灭菌合格例数为 290 件,合格率为 96.67%;C组器械清洗合格件数为 299 件,合格率为 99.67%,器械灭菌合格例数为 300 件,合格率为 100.00%,三组对比差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).C组、B组清洗时间、消毒时间对比差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);C组、B组清洗时间、消毒时间均短于A组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);A组器械清洗的科室对器械清洗的满意度评分为(7.45±0.75)分、B组为(8.16±0.87)分、C组为(8.85±0.92)分,三组对比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 传统手工清洗、含超声的清洗消毒器清洗、减压沸腾清洗机清洗三种腔镜器械清洗方式对比发现,减压沸腾清洗机清洗效果最佳,具有较高的清洗合理率与灭菌合格率,值得应用.
Objective To compare and analyze the application effects of traditional manual cleaning,ultrasonic cleaning disinfectors,and reduced pressure boiling cleaning machines in the cleaning of endoscopic instruments in the sterilization supply center.Methods A total of 800 endoscopic instruments processed by the Sterilization Supply Center of Shangqiu First People's Hospital from February 2022 to August 2023 were selected as the research subjects.According to the actual cleaning methods,they were divided into groups:200 instruments were cleaned manually(Group A),300 instruments were cleaned using ultrasonic cleaning disinfectors(Group B),and 300 instruments were cleaned using reduced pressure boiling cleaning machines(Group C).The cleaning qualification rate,sterilization qualification rate,cleaning time,disinfection cost,and satisfaction of various departments with the instrument cleaning were compared among the three groups.Results The number of qualified cleaned instruments in Group A was 180,with a qualification rate of 90.00%,and the number of qualified sterilized instruments was 180,with a qualification rate of 90.00%.In Group B,the number of qualified cleaned instruments was 289,with a qualification rate of 96.33%,and the number of qualified sterilized instruments was 290,with a qualification rate of 96.67%.In Group C,the number of qualified cleaned instruments was 299,with a qualification rate of 99.67%,and the number of qualified sterilized instruments was 300,with a qualification rate of 100.00%.The differences among the three groups were statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in cleaning time and disinfection time between Group C and Group B(P＞0.05).The cleaning time and disinfection time in Group C and Group B were shorter than those in Group A,with statistically significant differences(P＜0.05).The satisfaction scores of the departments with instrument cleaning were(7.45±0.75)points in Group A,(8.16±0.87)points in Group B,and(8.85±0.92)points in Group C,with statistically significant differences among the three groups(P＜0.05).Conclusion Comparing the three cleaning methods for endoscopic instruments—traditional manual cleaning,ultrasonic cleaning disinfectors,and reduced pressure boiling cleaning machines—it was found that the reduced pressure boiling cleaning machine had the best cleaning effect,with higher cleaning and sterilization qualification rates.It is worthy of application.
申莹
商丘市第一人民医院 消毒供应中心,河南 商丘 476000
预防医学
传统手工清洗含超声的清洗消毒器减压沸腾清洗机消毒供应中心腔镜器械
traditional manual cleaningultrasonic cleaning disinfectorsreduced pressure boiling cleaning machinessterilization supply centerendoscopic instruments
《临床研究》 2024 (010)
89-92 / 4
评论