论文部分内容阅读
目的比较两种不同保湿方法对子宫腔吸引管清洗效果,为提高管腔类医疗器械清洗质量提供依据。方法选择某医院2012年5月至2013年11月使用后污染子宫腔吸引管1 600根,随机分为观察组和对照组。观察组采用加酶沉水箱法保湿,对照组用保湿剂喷洒保湿,保湿预处理后的吸引管选择相同的流程进行清洗。对清洗后的器械采用5倍光源放大镜目测及白通条法进行清洁度检查。结果保湿预处理清洗后,放大镜目测检查观察组合格率99.07%,对照组合格率92.01%;白通条法检查观察组合格率99.33%,对照组合格率87.37%。结论污染子宫腔吸引管等管腔类器械采用加酶沉水箱法保湿的清洗效果明显优于采用保湿剂喷洒保湿。
Objective To compare the effect of two different moisturizing methods on the suction effect of uterine cavity suction tube and provide the basis for improving the quality of lumen medical instrument cleaning. Methods A total of 1 600 contaminated uterine suction tubes were selected from a hospital from May 2012 to November 2013 and were randomly divided into observation group and control group. The observation group was treated with enzyme-added water tank moisturizing, the control group with moisturizing agent spray moisturizing, moisturizing pretreatment suction tube choose the same process for cleaning. After cleaning the instrument using a magnifying glass magnification 5 times visual inspection and white-line method cleanliness check. Results After moisturizing pretreatment, the magnifying glass was 99.07% in the observation group and 92.01% in the control group by the magnifying glass; the passing rate was 99.33% in the observation group and 87.37% in the control group. Conclusion The results showed that the cleaning effect on the lumen devices, such as uterine cavity suction tube, which was contaminated by the enzyme and the sink method, was better than that of the moisturizing agent.