金属吸引管不同清洗方法的效果分析  

Effects of Different Cleaning Methods on Metal Suction Tube

作　　者：戴李中[1] 郑柏湘[1] 

机构地区：[1]绍兴市人民医院消毒供应中心,浙江绍兴312000

出　　处：《中华医院感染学杂志》2010年第14期2078-2079,共2页Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology

摘　　要：目的探讨金属吸引管的最佳清洗方法。方法取手术室使用后的金属吸引管600件经清水冲洗后,随机分为A、B、C组,每组样本200件,经多酶清洗液浸泡10 min后,A组采用超声机洗加手工刷洗,再高压水枪冲洗后放入清洗消毒器的专用架清洗;B组不手工刷洗管腔,其余清洗程序与A组相同;C组不超声机洗,其余清洗程序与A组相同;清洗后的吸引管用目测、高压气枪冲击和细菌检测方法比较其清洗效果。结果 A、B、C组清洗方法的清洗合格率分别为99.5%、51.5%、71.0%,管腔内壁带菌率分别为0、50.0%、26.7%,差异有统计学意义;A组清洗方法的清洗效果最佳。结论正确有效的超声机洗加手工刷洗加高压水枪冲洗方法能保证清洗的质量。OBJECTIVE To explore the best cleaning method for metal suction tube.METHODS Totally 600 used metal suction tubes from operating room after the immersion by multi-enzyme for 10mins were randomly divided into groups A,B and C,each group with 200 samples,group A was treated with ultrasound plus manual washing,rinsed with high-pressure water guns and then cleaned and disinfected after the device placed on a special cleaning rack.Group B was not treated with the manual washing,and the rest of cleaning procedures was as same as group A.Group C was not treated with ultrasound washing and the rest of procedures was as same as group A.The visual observation,high pressure air guns impact and bacterial detection were used after cleaning to compare their cleaning effects.RESULTS The cleaning pass rates of above three groups were 99.5%,51.5% and 71.0%,respectively,the carrier rates of the lumen wall were 0%,50.0% and 26.7%,with statistically significant differences.The cleaning effect of group A was the best.CONCLUSIONS Correct and effective ultrasound washing plus manual brushing plus high-pressure water guns washing can guarantee the quality of cleaning.

关 键 词：金属吸引管 清洗 效果 

分 类 号：R187[医药卫生—流行病学]