主动管理空气消毒机效果分析

Effect analysis of active management of air disinfection equipment

目的通过加强空气消毒机购置后的一系列主动管理措施,改善空气消毒机的日常工作状态,保障临床科室的空气质量。方法选择某三甲医院3个科室使用的73台壁挂式高压静电场空气消毒机(深圳某厂生产),其中Ⅱ类环境的介入手术室15台,Ⅲ类环境的肾病透析中心和普通内科病区分别为18台、40台。开展空气消毒机的使用培训、相关政策法规学习培训与考核,并建立科室双向随访响应评估制度,对上述主动管理措施实施前后空气消毒机的设备开机率、设备故障率、设备报修率和前置过滤网质量进行对比研究。结果普通内科病区主动管理前,空气消毒机设备开机率58.4%,设备故障率72.5%,设备报修率10.3%;主动管理后,设备开机率89.1%,设备故障率25.0%,设备报修率100.0%;主动管理前后设备开机率、设备故障率、设备报修率比较,差异有显著统计学意义(P=0.000)。肾病透析中心主动管理前,空气消毒机设备开机率64.6%,设备故障率19.4%,设备报修率28.6%;主动管理后,设备开机率91.0%,设备故障率8.3%,设备报修率100.0%;主动管理前后比较,差异有显著统计学意义(P=0.000)。介入手术室主动管理前,空气消毒机设备开机率77.5%,设备故障率20.0%,设备报修率100.0%;主动管理后,设备开机率95.8%,设备故障率13.3%,设备报修率100.0%;主动管理前后比较,开机率差异有显著统计学意义(P=0.000);设备故障率和设备报修率虽有差异,但差异无统计学意义。主动管理前,普通内科病区、肾病透析中心、介入手术室前置过滤网质量分别为(8.88±1.00)g、(8.51±0.78)g、(10.17±1.50)g,主动管理后普通内科病区、肾病透析中心、介入手术室前置过滤网质量分别为(10.72±0.86)g、(11.78±0.70)g、(10.73±0.64)g。普通内科病区、肾病透析中心、介入手术室前置过滤网质量明显高于主动管理前,其中普通内科病区、肾病透析中心前置过滤网质量差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);而介入手术室前置过滤网质量差异无统计学意义(P=0.338)。结论通过设备管理部门的主动管理和临床科室的配合,临床科室空气消毒机的使用工况得到明显改善,院内感染控制质量、设备管理科对临床科室的服务质量均获得提升,管理效果显著。

Objective To improve the daily working status of air disinfector and ensure air quality of clinical departments by strengthening a series of active management measures after purchase of air disinfector. Methods A total of 73 sets of wallmounted high-voltage electrostatic field air disinfection equipment(made in Shenzhen) used in 3 departments of a tertiary firstclass hospital were selected, which included 15 in Interventional Operation Room in Class Ⅱ environment, 18 Nephropathy Dialysis Center and 40 General Internal Medicine Ward in Class Ⅲ environment. The operation training of air disinfection machine, relevant policies and regulations learning, training and assessment were performed, and two-way follow-up response evaluation system was established to compare the equipment operation rate, equipment failure rate, equipment repair rate and pre-filter quality of air disinfectors before and after active management measures. Results Before the implementation of active management in General Internal Medicine Ward, the equipment operation rate was 58.4 %, equipment failure rate was72.5 % and failure repair rate was 10.3 %. After the implementation, the equipment operation rate was 89.1 %, equipment failure rate was 25.0 % and failure repair rate was 100.0 %. There were significant differences in equipment operation rate,equipment failure rate and equipment repair rate before and after the implementation of active management(P = 0.000). Before the implementation of active management in Nephropathy Dialysis Center, the equipment operation rate was 64.6 %,equipment failure rate was 19.4 % and failure repair rate was 28.6 %. After the implementation, the equipment operation rate was 91.0 %, equipment failure rate was 8.3 % and failure repair rate was 100.0 %, and the differences before and after the implementation were significant(P = 0.000). Before the implementation of active management in Interventional Operation Room,the equipment operation rate was 77.5 %, equipment failure rate was 20.0 % and failure repair rate was 100.0 %. After the implementation, the equipment operation rate was 95.8 %, equipment failure rate was 13.3 % and failure repair rate was 100.0 %.There was significant difference in operating rate before and after the implementation(P = 0.000), while although equipment failure rate and equipment repair rate were different, the changes were not statistically significant. Before the implementation of active management, the quality of pre-filters in General Internal Medicine Ward, Nephropathy Dialysis Center and Interventional Operation Room were(8.88 ± 1.00) g,(8.51 ± 0.78) g and(10.17 ± 1.50) g, respectively. After the implementation, the quality of pre-filters in General Internal Medicine Ward, Nephropathy Dialysis Center and Interventional Operating Room were(10.72 ±0.86) g,(11.78 ± 0.70) g and(10.73 ± 0.64) g, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of before the implementation of active management. For quality of pre-filters, the differences in General Internal Medicine Ward and Nephropathy Dialysis Center were statistically significant(P < 0.05), but the difference in Interventional Operating Room was not significant(P = 0.338).Conclusion It is demonstrated that by active management of equipment management department and cooperation of clinical department, the use of air disinfector in clinical departments is significantly improved, and the quality of nosocomial infection control and service quality of equipment management department are improved, and the management effect is significant.