目的 探讨锐器相同纸塑包装不同袋内保护方法的效果及成本构成.方法 将锐器1 500件随机分为A、B、C三组,A组不做保护措施,B组锐器用脱脂纱布保护,C组锐器用输液管保护,研究其包装袋被刺破的几率、保护套松脱几率及成本构成.结果 脱脂纱布保护及输液管保护防破损效果均优.脱脂纱布保护比不做保护措施防刺破率降低46%,输液管保护比不做保护措施防刺破率降低49%(P<0.01),输液管保护比脱脂纱布保护松脱率少10%(P<0.01).输液管保护与脱脂纱布保护成本比较,输液管保护比脱脂纱布保护成本降低40.9%,比不做保护措施成本降低43.5%.结论 纸塑包装锐器用输液管保护防刺破具有良好效果,其成本明显低于脱脂纱布保护及不做保护,值得临床推广应用.%Objective To explore the effect of different protecting methods for the same sharp device with paper and plastic packaging and cost form. Methods 1 500 sharp devices were randomly divided into A, B and C groups, A group was not protective measures, B group were protected with skimmed gauze and C group were protected with infusion tube, the possibility of packaging punctured, the rate of protective cover loosed,and cost form were studied. Results Skimmed gauze and infusion tube protections against damaged effects were excellent. The rate of protecting punctuating with skimmed gauze protection was 46 percentages lower than without protecting measures, and with infusion tube protection was 49 percentages lower (P < 0. 01), the loosing rate of infusion tube protection was 10 percentage less than skimmed gauze protection (P<0.01).Comparing the cost of infusion tube protection with the cost of skimmed gauze protection, the former was 40.9percentages lower than the latter, and 43. 5 percentages lower than without protecting measures.Conclusions Using infusion tube to protect the sharp devices with paper and plastic packaging has a good result, the cost was obvious lower than skimmed gauze protection and lower than without protection measures, it was worth of being widely applied.
展开▼
