摘要
目的探讨最佳清洗方法,提高器械的清洗质量与清洗合格率。方法 2013年1-9月选取600件骨科器械,随机分为A、B、C 3组,每组各200件器械,A组器械未采用任何预洗方法,B组器械采用全部预洗方法,C组器械采用选择性预洗的方法,采用目测法、放大镜下检测、ATP荧光法检测3组器械的清洗质量。结果目测法、放大镜下检测、ATP荧光法检测合格率A组分别为92.5%、90.0%、87.5%,B组分别为95.0%、92.5%、95.0%,C组分别为97.5、98.0%、99.0%,C组清洗质量合格率优于A、B两组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);人工成本A组<C组<B组。结论从成本支出和清洗效果综合考虑,推荐选择性预洗清洗器械可有效提高清洗质量,又降低了人工成本。
OBJECTIVE To discuss the best cleaning method to improve the cleaning quality and the pass rate of in‐strument cleaning .METHODS Totally 600 orthopedic instruments were selected and randomly divided into three groups ,group A ,group B and group C ,each group with 200 instruments .In group A ,no pre‐cleaning method was applied .In group B ,pre‐cleaning method was applied to all the instruments .In group C ,selective pre‐clean‐ing method was applied to the instruments .The cleaning quality in the three groups was examined by visual obser‐vation ,magnifier and ATP fluorometric assay .RESULTS The pass rates of group A were 92 .5% ,90 .0% and 87 .5% by visual observation ,magnifier and ATP fluorometric assay respectively ,and were 95 .0% ,92 .5% and 95 .0% in group B ,97 .5 ,98 .0% and 99 .0% in group C respectively ,indicating the pass rate for cleaning quality was significantly higher for group C than for group A and group B （P〈0 .05） .The human labor cost was in the following order：group A 〈 group C 〈 group B .CONCLUSION In comprehensive consideration of both cost and cleaning efficacy ,it is recommended for selective pre‐cleaning method which can effectively raise the cleaning quali‐ty and reduce labor cost .
出处
《中华医院感染学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2015年第19期4540-4541,共2页
Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology
基金
温州市科技计划基金资助项目(2013S0209)
关键词
清洗
预洗
选择性预洗
清洗效果
Cleaning
Pre-cleaning
Selective pre-cleaning
Cleaning efficacy
