首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>GMS Hygiene and Infection Control >Microbiological evaluation of different reprocessing methods for cuffed and un-cuffed tracheostomy tubes in home-care and hospital setting
【2h】

Microbiological evaluation of different reprocessing methods for cuffed and un-cuffed tracheostomy tubes in home-care and hospital setting

机译:在家中和医院环境中对带袖带和不带袖带气管造口管的不同后处理方法的微生物学评估

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Background: Manufacturers’ recommendations on cleaning of tracheostomy tubes focus on general warning information and non-specific manual cleaning procedures. The aim of this experimental study was to evaluate different reprocessing methods and to determine the mechanical integrity and functionality of tracheostomy tubes following reprocessing.>Methods: Sixteen cuffed or un-cuffed tracheostomy tubes obtained from hospital in-patients were reprocessed using one of the following reprocessing methods: a) manual brushing and rinsing with tap water, b) manual brushing followed by disinfection with a glutaraldehyde solution, c) manual brushing followed machine-based cleaning in a dishwasher, and d) manual brushing followed by ultrasound cleaning in a commercially available ultrasound device. Microbial burden of the tubes before and after reprocessing was assessed by measurement of microbial colony-forming units per mL (CFU/mL) of rinsing fluid. After cleaning, tracheostomy tubes were investigated for loss of functionality. >Findings: Manual brushing and rinsing with tap water reduced microbial colonization in average by 102 CFU/mL, but with poor reproducibility and reliability. Complete microbial reduction was achieved only with additional chemical or machine-based thermal disinfection. Ultrasound sonification yielded no further microbial reduction after manual brushing. >Conclusion: Manual brushing alone will not result in complete eradication of microorganism colonising cuffed or un-cuffed tracheostomy tubes. However, manual cleaning followed by chemical or thermal disinfection may be regarded as safe and reproducible reprocessing method. If a machine-based reprocessing method is used for cuffed tubes, the cuffs’ ventilation hose must be secured in a safe position prior to thermal disinfection.
机译:>背景:制造商在清洁气管造口术导管方面的建议侧重于一般警告信息和非特定的手动清洁程序。这项实验研究的目的是评估不同的再处理方法,并确定再处理后气管切开插管的机械完整性和功能。>方法:从医院住院患者中获得的十六个带袖套或无带套气管切开插管使用以下一种后处理方法进行重新处理:a)手动刷牙并用自来水冲洗,b)手动刷牙,然后用戊二醛溶液消毒,c)手动刷牙,然后在洗碗机中进行机器清洁,以及d)手动刷牙通过在市售的超声设备中进行超声清洁来进行。通过测量每毫升冲洗液中的微生物菌落形成单位(CFU / mL)来评估再处理前后试管的微生物负荷。清洁后,检查气管切开插管的功能丧失。 >发现:使用自来水进行手工刷洗和漂洗平均可将微生物定植量降低10 2 CFU / mL,但重现性和可靠性差。只有通过额外的化学或基于机器的热消毒才能完全减少微生物。手动刷洗后,超声超声处理未产生进一步的微生物减少。 >结论:单独手动刷牙并不能完全根除微生物,这些微生物定植在有袖带或无袖带的气管造口术管中。但是,手动清洁后再进行化学或热消毒可被视为安全且可重现的后处理方法。如果对袖带管使用基于机器的后处理方法,则在进行热消毒之前,必须将袖带的通风软管固定在安全的位置。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号