硬式内窥镜导光部件清洗消毒后两种检查方式的对比研究  

Comparison study of two kinds of inspection methods for light guiding components of hard endoscopes after cleaning and disinfection

作　　者：张俊明 谢辉 时光静 赵莹 王毛 储芳 Zhang Junming;Xie Hui;Shi Guangjing;Zhao Ying;Wang Mao;Chu Fang(CSSD of The Fifth Medical Center,Chinese PLA General Hospital,Beijing 100071,China;The 2nd Party General Branch of The Fifth Medical Center,Chinese PLA General Hospital,Beijing 100071,China)

机构地区：[1]中国人民解放军总医院第五医学中心消毒供应中心,北京100071 [2]中国人民解放军总医院第五医学中心第二党总支部,北京100071

出　　处：《中国医学装备》2025年第4期150-154,共5页China Medical Equipment

摘　　要：目的:研究硬式内窥镜导光部件清洗消毒后人工与专用检查设备两种检查方式的效果,为硬式内窥镜专用检查设备在消毒供应中心的应用提供科学依据。方法:选取2024年7月至8月解放军总医院第五医学中心消毒供应中心清洗消毒后的100件硬式内窥镜,对每件硬式内窥镜导光部件分别采用人工检查方法和专用内窥镜功能检查仪进行检查(设备检查方法),对比两种检查方式的硬式内窥镜导光部件雾气阳性率、污点阳性率、玻璃碎片阳性率及总体不合格率,以及与临床使用效果之间的差异。结果:100件硬式内窥镜采用设备检查方法发现总体不合格2件,其中出现雾气、污点和玻璃碎片分别为2、0和0件,总体不合格率、雾气阳性率、污点阳性率和玻璃碎片阳性率分别为2%、2%、0和0,均低于人工检查总体不合格率(23%)、雾气阳性率(17%)、污点阳性率(2%)和玻璃碎片阳性率(4%),两种检查方式总体不合格率及雾气阳性率比较,差异有统计学意义(x^(2)=18.286、11.399,P<0.05)。临床使用者反馈总体不合格率为3%,与人工检查总体不合格率(23%)比较,差异有统计学意义(x^(2)=15.959,P<0.05)。结论:硬式内窥镜导光部件清洗消毒后的检查可以通过人工检查及专用检查设备检查两种方式进行,专用检查设备检查结果更加接近临床使用者的使用效果,同时具有直观、使用方便、准确率高、便于观察及可存档的优点。Objective:To study the effects of manual inspection and special equipment inspection for light guiding components of hard endoscope after cleaning and disinfection,so as to provide scientific data and evidence for the application of special inspection equipment of hard endoscope in Central Sterile Supply Department(CSSD).Methods:A total of 100 hard endoscopes after cleaning and disinfection,which were in CSSD of the Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital during July and August 2024,were selected.Each light guiding components of hard endoscope was respectively inspected by manual method and special functional detector for endoscope(inspection method with equipment).The positive rates of fog,stains and glass shards,and overall failure rate of light guiding components of hard endoscope,as well as the difference with the effect of clinical use,between two kinds of inspection methods were compared.Results:In 100 hard endoscopes,the inspection method with equipment found 2 cases were overall failure,which fog,strains and glass shards were respectively 2,0 and 0.The overall failure rate,and the positive rates of fog,stains and glass shards of the inspection method with equipment were respectively 2%,2%,0 and 0,which all lower than overall failure rate(23%),and the positive rates of fog(17%),stains(2%)and glass shards(4%)of manual inspection.There was significant difference in overall failure rate and positive rat of fog between the two kinds of inspection methods(x^(2)=18.286,11.399,P<0.05).The overall failure rate that was reflected by clinical users was 3%,which was significant lower than 23%of manual inspection,and the difference of that between two methods was significant(x^(2)=15.959,P<0.05).Conclusion:The inspection for light guiding components of hard endoscopes after cleaning and disinfection can be carried out by manual inspection and special inspection equipment,and results of special inspection equipment is getting closer the usage effect of clinical users.It has a series of advantages include b

关 键 词：消毒供应中心 硬式内窥镜 设备检查 人工检查 导光部件 

分 类 号：R197.39[医药卫生—卫生事业管理]