人工鼻与加热湿化在护理用时中的对比研究

Correlation research for HME and HH on the impact of nursing time consuming

目的研究人工鼻对节省传统湿化护理用时的影响。方法实验组采用人工鼻对人工气道进行湿化，对照组采用加热湿化装置对人工气道进行湿化，从痰液黏稠度、痰痂形成、气道痉挛、湿化意外四方面判断两种湿化方式效果；发放两种湿化方式护理用时调查表及人工气道患者吸痰次数、更换被服频率调查表，对护理用时进行统计分析。结果实验组湿化效果优于对照组；两种湿化方式操作中护理用时存在显著差异，实验组用时（6．67±1．01）min，对照组用时（26．27±1．75）min（P〈0．01）；在人工气道患者中，护士吸痰次数及更换被服频率实验组优于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论无论是经口、经鼻插管还是气管切开，采用人工鼻对人工气道进行湿化，护理人力的投入明显少于采用加热湿化装置，其优势在于能够减少人工气道护理相关的护理时数，减轻护士的工作强度，提高人工气道管理效能。

Objective To compare the difference of impact on the nursing time consuming between two typos of artificial airway humidification, which means HME （heal and mositure exchanger） and HH （heated humidifier） . Methods Use HME as experimental group and HH as control group, evaluate the effect of these two types of artificial airway humidification from sputum viscosity, formation of sputum callus, airway spasm and humidification accident, account, and analyze the data by statistic method. Results HME was much better than HH on effect of humidification. The experiment group spent （6.67 ± 1.01 ） min on time consuming for nursing and the control group spent （26. 27 ±1.75） min, the difference between two types of humidification was significant （P 〈0. 01 ） . By the way, HME was much better than HH on the frequency of sputum suction bedclothes replacement （ P 〈 0. 05） . Conclusions The advantage of HME is decreasing the nursing manpower investment, through saving the time consuming for nursing, relieving strength of nurse work and improving efficacy of artificial airway management.