临床护理人员洗手后选择干手方法的探讨  

A comparative study of two different hand-drying methods

作　　者：李丽[1] 左丽宏[1] 康晓凤[1] 耿辉[1] 

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院感染和临床微生物科,100020

出　　处：《中华现代护理杂志》2009年第31期3223-3225,共3页Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing

摘　　要：目的为临床选择简单、方便、合适的干手方法提供依据。方法将64名临床护士随机分为毛巾干手组（A组）和纸巾f手组（B组）各32名。毛巾下手组于灭菌毛巾挂上时和2h后分别按六步洗手法洗手后采样，再用灭菌毛巾于手后采样；纸巾干手组按六步洗手法洗手后采样，再用一次性纸巾干手后采样。对样本菌落进行检测和判定；同时对两种干手方法进行成本计算。结果洗手后、干手后细菌菌落数合格率比较，A组洗手后84．4％，干手后90．6％；B组洗手后84．4％，干手后93．8％，两组差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；两组方法成本比较，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论一次性纸巾和不同时间段的公用灭菌毛巾都能达到干手、洁净的效果，使用一次性纸巾更为简单方便和实用。Objective To provide clinical practice the simple, convenient and suitable hand-drying methods. Methods 64 clinical nurses were randomly divided into 2 groups. All of the subjects washed hands. One group members used disposable paper towels for drying hands after washing,and another group used sterile towels. Bacteria numbers and the cost were compared between two groups. Results There were no significant differences between use of disposable paper towels and sterile towels in bacteria numbers and the cost of handdrying. Conclusions Disposable paper towels and sterile towels are both effective hand drying methods, but the former is more convenient and available.

关 键 词：临床护理人员 干手方法 效果 成本 

分 类 号：R472[医药卫生—护理学]