摘要
目的 探讨一种眼科诊室中方便、有效的空气消毒方法.方法 通过将空气清菌片和空气消毒机两种不同消毒方法应用于眼科诊室空气消毒后,进行诊室空气取样,分析样本细菌菌落总数.将消毒前后所得空气细菌总数杀菌效果差异进行比较.结果 在2010年3个月的检测中,2号诊室超标率为53.33%,4号诊室超标率为42.22%,两诊室超标率接近（精确概率法P=0.399）;两诊室超标率合并后与候诊区超标率比较,可认为候诊区超标率高于诊室超标率（精确概率法P=0.003）.在3个月90次监测中,就有43次超标（平均超标率为47.78%）,虽低于候诊区超标率,仍可认为两诊室这3个月均为无效消毒法.结论 通过2010年3个月的进一步现场监测评价,认为平均上午就诊人数超过某确定值（目前设定350人）时,为无效消毒法,应继续改进消毒方法,以保证诊室空气洁净质量.
Objective To explore a convenient and effective method of air disinfection for the ophthalmology consultation room. Methods Two different disinfection methods including air disinfection mat and air disinfection machine were used in ophthalmic consultation room in this study. Before and after disinfection by each method, air samples were taken for bacterial culture and total number of bacterial colony counting. Statistics analysis was done to compare the difference of the effectiveness of the two disinfection method. Results After 3 months evaluation, the disqualification rate of consultation room 2 was 53. 33%, and 42. 22% for consultation room 4, without significant different （exact probabilistic method P = 0. 399） . The disqualification rate of waiting area was higher than that of both consultation rooms （ exact probabilistic method P =0. 003 ） . The disqalification rate of consultation rooms 2 and 4 was 47. 78 % （43 times in 90 times in 3 months）, It should be considered ineffective although it was lower then that of waiting area. Conclusions After 3 months evaluation in 2010, the results show that the air disinfection for the ophthalmology consultation room is ineffective, when the number of patients increases to some level （350） . The methods should be improved to guarantee the quality of air in consultation room.
出处
《国际护理学杂志》
2011年第4期488-489,共2页
international journal of nursing
基金
2007年汕头市科技计划项目资助[2007076]
关键词
空气清菌片
空气消毒机
空气消毒
Air disinfection mat
Air disinfecting machines
Air disinfection
