切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (05) : 453 -457. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-9450.2021.05.015

护理园地

三种移动换药车消毒流程效果比较
李会娟1, 贾会学2, 关辉1, 孙立颖3, 温冰1, 郭晓蕙4, 齐心1,()   
  1. 1. 100034 北京大学第一医院整形烧伤外科
    2. 100034 北京大学第一医院感染控制科
    3. 100034 北京大学第一医院细菌室
    4. 100034 北京大学第一医院内分泌科
  • 收稿日期:2021-07-11 出版日期:2021-10-01
  • 通信作者: 齐心
  • 基金资助:
    北京大学第一医院青年临床研究专项基金(2017CR13); 北京市科技计划课题(Z181100001718121)

Comparison of the effects of three disinfection processes of mobile dressing change cart

Huijuan Li1, Huixue Jia2, Hui Guan1, Liying Sun3, Bing Wen1, Xiaohui Guo4, Xin Qi1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Plastic and Burns Surgery, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China
    2. Department of Healthcare-associated Infection Management and Disease Prevention and Control, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China
    3. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China
    4. Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China
  • Received:2021-07-11 Published:2021-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Xin Qi
引用本文:

李会娟, 贾会学, 关辉, 孙立颖, 温冰, 郭晓蕙, 齐心. 三种移动换药车消毒流程效果比较[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2021, 16(05): 453-457.

Huijuan Li, Huixue Jia, Hui Guan, Liying Sun, Bing Wen, Xiaohui Guo, Xin Qi. Comparison of the effects of three disinfection processes of mobile dressing change cart[J]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2021, 16(05): 453-457.

目的

比较移动换药车3种不同消毒流程的效果。

方法

选取北京大学第一医院整形烧伤外科病房换药室1辆移动换药车,分别采取3种不同消毒流程进行消毒。流程A:于每天早晨换药前、中午换药后和下午换药后彻底消毒换药车。流程B:每天早晨换药前、下午换药后彻底消毒换药车。流程C:每天早晨换药前、下午换药后彻底消毒换药车,同时增加换药车每次移动前(出换药单元前)用相同方法消毒换药车关键部位,即车顶、车把手和抽屉把手。每天分别于早晨消毒处理后、中午换药后消毒前和下午换药后消毒前采集样本。比较3种消毒流程下移动换药车的样本合格率和无菌落样本检出率。3种不同消毒流程下的样本合格率和无菌落样本检出率及两两比较均采用卡方检验。

结果

3种消毒流程换药前样本合格率均为100.00%。流程A中午和下午换药后消毒前样本合格率分别为98.85%和100.00%,流程C中午和下午换药后消毒前样本合格率均为100.00%,与流程B(中午和下午换药后消毒前的样本合格率均为86.67%)比较差异均有统计学意义(χ2=6.653、8.219、10.227、6.610,P值均小于0.05)。流程A和流程C之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3组消毒流程换药前无菌落标本检出率均高于90%,差异无统计学意义(χ2=3.87,P=0.14)。中午换药后消毒前和下午换药后消毒前无菌落标本检出率均有统计学差异(χ2=37.58,30.38,P值均小于0.05)。中午和下午换药后消毒前流程C的无菌落标本检出率分别为100.00%和97.92%,均高于流程A(62.07%和48.33%)和流程B(60.00和66.67%),差异均有统计学意义(χ2=35.726、31.443、32.143、12.952,P值均小于0.05)。中午和下午换药后消毒前流程A和流程B的无菌落标本检出率差异均无统计学意义(χ2=0.023、1.616,P值均大于0.05)。

结论

每天早晨换药前、下午换药后彻底消毒换药车,同时增加换药车每次移动前关键部位的消毒,可以达到3者中最优的消毒效果。

Objective

To compare the effect of three disinfection processes of mobile dressing change trolly.

Methods

A mobile dressing change cart was selected from the dressing change room in the plastic and burn surgery ward, and three disinfection processes were respectively adopted for disinfection. Process A: disinfect the dressing change cart every morning, after dressing change at noon and after dressing change in the afternoon. Process B: disinfect the dressing change cart thoroughly before dressing in the morning and after dressing in the afternoon. Process C: disinfect the dressing cart thoroughly before dressing change in the morning and after dressing change in the afternoon, meanwhile, the key parts of the dressing change cart, including the roof, cart handle and drawer handle, should be disinfected in the same way before each movement of the dressing change cart( before leaving the dressing change unit). Samples were collected daily after disinfection in the morning, before disinfection at noon and in the afternoon. The sample qualification rate and detection rate of colony-free samples were compared under three disinfection processes. The sample qualification rete and detection rate of colony-free samples in three disinfection processes as well as the difference between two groups were compared by chi-square test.

Results

The qualification rate of samples before dressing change under the three disinfection processes was 100%. The qualified rate of samples were 98.85% and 100.00% at noon and in the afternoon respectively after dressing change for process A, while the qualified rate of samples were both 100.00% at noon and in the afternoon for process C, and there were statistically significant differences when compared with prcess B(χ2=6.653, 8.219, 10.227, 6.610; P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between process A and process C(P>0.05). As for the detection rate of colony-free samples, there was no statistically significant difference between three groups before disinfection(P>0.05). There were statistically significant differences between three groups at noon and afternoon(χ2=37.58, 30.38; P<0.05). A further comparison between two groups showed that , the detection rate of colony-free samples in process C was 100.00% at noon and 97.92% in the afternoon, which was higher than that in both process A(62.07% and 48.33%) and process B(60.00% and 66.67%), there were statistically significant differences(χ2=35.726, 31.443, 32.143, 12.952; P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between process A and precess B(χ2=0.023, 1.616; P>0.05).

Conclusion

The best disinfection effect can be achieved by thoroughly disinfection the dressing change cart before dressing change in the morning and after dressing change in the afternoon, and at the same time increasing disinfection of key parts before each movement of the dressing change cart.

图1 换药车
表1 3种消毒流程样本合格率的比较
表2 3种消毒流程无菌落样本检出率比较
[1]
Jiang Y, Huang S, Fu X , et al. Epidemiology of chronic cutaneous wounds in China[J]. Wound Repair Regen, 2011, 19(2): 181-188.
[2]
付小兵. 中国特色创面修复学科体系建设的内涵[J/CD]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2020, 15(1): 1-4.
[3]
付小兵.构建一个创面治疗学科体系:中国特色创面治疗中心建设20年的回顾与展望[J]. 中华烧伤杂志2018, 34(12): 859-863.
[4]
贺婷婷,苏淑梅,蔡夺,等. 大容量烧伤换药车的设计与应用[J]. 中华烧伤杂志2017, 33(3): 178-179.
[5]
James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R, et al. Biofilms in chronic wounds[J]. Wound Repair Regen, 2008, 16(1): 37-44.
[6]
申桂娟,吴利和,陆军,等. 高频接触物体表面消毒质量管理在多耐药菌控制中的作用研究[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志2016, 26(4): 950-952.
[7]
吴丹,陈月琴,丁美基,等. 提高医院环境、物体表面清洁消毒合格率对医院感染管理的影响[J]. 临床医药文献杂志2019, 6(22): 182.
[8]
李会娟,齐心,路潜. 美国足病医学发展现状及其对我国专科护理发展的启示[J]. 中华现代护理杂志2017, 23(32): 4181-4184.
[9]
中华人民共和国卫生部. 医疗机构消毒技术规范:WS/T 367-2012[S]. 北京,2012.
[10]
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会. 医院消毒卫生标准:GB15982-2012[S]. 北京,2012.
[11]
班海群,朱仁义,刘晓杰,等. 医院物体表面微生物污染现状及控制策略研究[J]. 中国消毒学杂志2015, 32(7): 649-653.
[12]
徐燕,王晓蕾,陈新,等. 医院环境物体表面微生物污染调查及干预研究[J].中国消毒学杂志2016, 33(11): 1044-1048.
[13]
张平,丁丽丽,喻玲丽,等. 重症监护科室高频接触物体表面清洁消毒检测及干预效果[J]. 中国消毒学杂志2015, 32(12): 1258-1259.
[14]
张友平,侯铁英,刘艳红,等. ICU物体表面清洁消毒质量干预在多耐药菌预防控制中的效果分析[J]. 中华医院感染性杂志2014, 24(21): 5420-5422.
[1] 张佳园, 魏凌飞, 刘晶, 邬春兰, 叶丽娟, 于德栋. 新型硅橡胶印模消毒流程对模型精度的影响[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 285-291.
[2] 宋雯璐, 李京, 李国英, 段俨芳, 狄心声, 胥欣. 压电骨皮质切开术在正畸中加速牙移动临床效果Meta分析[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 41-48.
[3] 何旭顺, 陈诗菁, 黄芳. 活动矫治器推磨牙远中进行乳磨牙早失间隙管理一例[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 360-367.
[4] 李永宁, 李英, 罗德荣, 朱昌毫, 刘鹏, 刘松柏, 喻超, 潘耀振. 移动医疗在胰腺癌患者全程管理中应用的研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 343-346.
[5] 尚利敏, 郑蒙蒙, 王志鹏, 杨洋, 孙雯, 张磊, 朱一辰. 改良手助后腹腔镜活体供肾切取术学习曲线研究[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 285-291.
[6] 周旻忞, 张恒喜, 冯华, 施林燕. 超声膈肌功能评估对重症肺炎伴呼吸衰竭患者机械通气撤机的指导意义[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(01): 98-100.
[7] 曾显坤, 霍鹏. 血清MIF联合LCN-2对NSCLC患者的诊断意义[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(01): 92-94.
[8] 刘燕, 叶亚萍, 郑艳莉. 干扰LINC00466通过miR-493-3p/MIF抑制子宫内膜癌RL95-2细胞恶性生物学行为[J]. 中华细胞与干细胞杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(03): 151-158.
[9] 张志强, 李飞, 郑全乐, 王振芳, 陈文锦, 孙恺, 吴国华, 李春虎, 徐超, 代秋声, 陈立华, 徐如祥. 儿童头部16排移动CT低剂量扫描成像及辐射损伤风险控制[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2022, 08(05): 282-286.
[10] 彭兆龙, 石军峰, 刘斌, 袁苗, 张洪钿, 代秋声, 杨磊, 徐超, 许家林, 于强, 栗志利, 徐如祥. 急性缺血性脑卒中MSU与常规救治疗效的对比分析[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2021, 07(05): 277-280.
[11] 徐如祥. 《欧洲卒中组织(ESO)移动卒中单元院前卒中管理指南》解读[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(01): 5-33.
[12] 徐如祥. 5G+智慧移动医疗技术与神经外科临床应用[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(01): 62-63.
[13] 郑全乐, 陈文锦, 吴国华, 李春虎, 张家瑞, 李学天, 张同乐, 周顺义, 徐如祥. 重症监护患者床旁移动CT与常规CT头部扫描结果对比分析[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(05): 300-304.
[14] 王晓怡, 洪凡, 陈晴晴, 孙雯. 新型冠状病毒感染疫情高发状态下封闭封控管理区孕产妇的管理方案研究[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2023, 12(02): 109-112.
[15] 李衡, 吴清华, 刘昌贺, 袁艺文, 吕正颀. 可移动125I粒子条联合经皮肝胆管内外引流术治疗肝门部胆管癌的临床价值[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2023, 11(01): 48-54.
阅读次数
全文


摘要