三种清洗消毒方法对怕湿医疗器械的清洗效果比较  

Comparison of the cleaning effects of three cleaning and disinfection methods on non-moisture-resistant medical devices

作　　者：吴玉艳 李惠萍[1] 余梅[2] WU Yu—yan;LI Hui—ping;YU Mei(Anhui Medical University School of Nursing,Hefei Anhui 230601;Hefei First Peoples Hospital,China)

机构地区：[1]安徽医科大学护理学院,安徽合肥230601 [2]合肥市第一人民医院

出　　处：《中国消毒学杂志》2020年第8期576-577,共2页Chinese Journal of Disinfection

摘　　要：目的观察3种清洗方法对怕湿医疗器械的清洗效果。方法采用目测法和ATP生物荧光法,对某医院3种清洗方法清洗怕湿医疗器械的效果进行观察比较。结果每组清洗方法清洗104件腹腔镜电凝线。3组合格率分别为86. 5%、83. 7%和71. 2%。第2组用纯化水擦拭、酶洗液擦拭、纯化水擦拭、75%乙醇擦拭程序的清洗效果、时间和成本方面具有最佳优势。结论第2组方法对怕湿医疗器械清洗效果较好,性价比优势明显。Objective To observe the cleaning effects of three cleaning and disinfection methods on non-moisture-resistant medical devices. Methods The visual inspection method and the ATP biofluorescence method were used to compare and observe the effects of the three cleaning and disinfection methods on non-moisture-resistant medical devices in a hospital.Results 104 laparoscopic coagulation lines were cleaned in each group of cleaning methods. The qualified cleaning rates of 3 groups were 86. 5%,83. 7% and 71. 2% respectively. The second group had the best advantages in terms of cleaning effect,time and cost with pure water wiping,enzyme washing liquid wiping,pure water wiping,and 75% ethanol wiping procedures.Conclusion The sencond group of method has a better cleaning effect on medical devices,and the cost-effective advantage is obvious.

关 键 词：清洗方法 怕湿医疗器械 清洗效果 

分 类 号：R187[医药卫生—流行病学]