不同眼科显微器械清洗方法的清洗剂残留和清洗质量的对比分析  

Cleaning agent residue and cleaning quality effect of different ophthalmic micro instrument cleaning methods

作　　者：刘芳[1] 宋瑾 Liu Fang;Song Jin(Disinfection Supply Center,the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University,Nanjing 210029,China;Department of Nursing Infection Control,the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University,Nanjing 210029,China)

机构地区：[1]南京医科大学第一附属医院消毒供应中心,南京210029 [2]南京医科大学第一附属医院护理感控科,南京210029

出　　处：《中华现代护理杂志》2020年第21期2890-2894,共5页Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing

摘　　要：目的探讨3种眼科显微器械清洗方法的清洗剂残留情况、清洗质量和清洗效率。方法收集南京医科大学第一附属医院2018年3月污染的眼科显微器械12000件,采用区组随机化法将其均分为A、B、C组,每组4000件器械。A组选取减压沸腾式清洗,B组选取全自动清洗消毒器清洗,C组选取手工加超声清洗机清洗。采用目测法及带光源的放大镜检查、ATP生物荧光法测试评价清洗效果;清洗剂残留通过检测清洗前后纯水中电导率变化进行监测,同时记录3组器械处理所需时间用于清洗效率的评价。结果电导率测试结果表明3组清洗方法均无清洗剂残留。ATP检测法和目测法检测清洗合格率比较结果显示,A组的合格率分别为100.00%和99.88%,B组分别为100.00%和99.80%,C组分别为95.00%和97.80%,A组和B组的清洗质量及清洗合格率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但均高于C组(P<0.01)。清洗效率比较结果显示,A组每500件器械耗时(86.04±6.60)min,B组为(147.36±14.60)min,C组为(241.50±22.41)min。A组耗时短于B、C组,B组耗时短于C组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论3种清洗方法均无清洗剂残留,但采用减压沸腾式清洗和全自动清洗消毒器清洗可以有效保证清洗质量。与此同时,减压沸腾式清洗相比于全自动清洗消毒器清洗耗时更短,效率更高。Objective To explore the cleaning agent residue,cleaning quality and cleaning efficiency of three kinds of ophthalmic micro instrument cleaning methods.Methods A total of 12000 pieces of ophthalmic micro instruments contaminated in the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University in March 2018 were collected.They were divided into groups A,B,and C by block randomization method,with 4000 instruments in every group.Group A selected decompression boiling cleaning,group B selected automatic cleaning sterilizer cleaning and group C selected manual cleaning with ultrasonic machine cleaning.The cleaning effect was evaluated by visual inspection,magnifying glass with light source and ATP bioluminescence test.The cleaning agent residue was monitored by detecting the change of conductivity in pure water before and after cleaning.At the same time,required time for instrument processing of three groups were recorded to evaluate cleaning efficiency.Results The results of the conductivity test of cleaning methods in three groups showed that no cleaning agent remained.The comparison of cleaning qualification rates of ATP detection method and the visual inspection method showed that the pass rates of A group were respectively 100.00%and 99.88%,those of group B were respectively 100.00%and 99.80%and those of Group C were respectively 95.00%and 97.80%.There was no significant difference in cleaning quality and cleaning qualification rate between group A and group B(P>0.05),but they were all higher than those of group C(P<0.01).The comparison results of cleaning efficiency showed that the consumed time for each 500 instruments in group A was(86.04±6.60)min,that in group B was(147.36±14.60)min and that in group C was(241.50±22.41)min.The consumed time for group A was shorter than that of group B and group C,and consumed time for group B was shorter than that of group C.The differences were all statistically significant(P<0.01).Conclusions No cleaning agent remains in the three cleaning methods,but the use of decompre

关 键 词：眼科 显微器械 消毒供应中心 清洗方法 减压沸腾式清洗 全自动清洗 手工加超声清洗 效果 

分 类 号：R472.1[医药卫生—护理学]