论文部分内容阅读
目的:调查医院公用电话污染情况,比较两种不同消毒液对公用电话的消毒效果。方法:分别对公用电话听筒、话筒及手柄(打接电话时手握部位)在未消毒和A组用复方新洁灵、B组用“84”消毒液消毒后分别涂抹采样做细菌培养。结果:未消毒前电话听筒、话筒及手柄细菌污染率A组为96.7%、B组为93.3%,A组用复方新洁灵、B组用“84”消毒液消毒后做细菌培养均符合卫生学标准要求,经x2检验,P<0.01,差异具有统计学意义。结论:未消毒前电话听筒、话筒及手柄细菌污染率90%以上,而复方新洁灵和“84”消毒液对医院公用电话均可以用来消毒,两种消毒剂的消毒效果无明显差异,临床可根据具体情况选用。
Objective: To investigate the public telephone pollution in hospitals and to compare the disinfection effects of two different disinfectants on public telephones. Methods: Respectively, the public telephone handset, the microphone and the handle (to pick up the phone when holding the hand) were not disinfected and A group with compound Nemelamine, B group with “84” disinfectant were smear sampling bacterial culture . Results: Before the disinfection, the bacterial contamination rate of the handset, the microphone and the handle were 96.7% in group A and 93.3% in group B, and group A was treated with Xinjieling, while group B was disinfected with disinfectant “84” Meet the hygiene standards, by x2 test, P <0.01, the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: Before the disinfection of telephone handset, microphone and handle bacterial contamination rate of more than 90%, while the compound Xinjie Ling and “84 ” disinfectant on the hospital public telephone can be used for disinfection, two disinfectants disinfection effect was not obvious Differences, clinical choice according to the specific circumstances.