Academic Journal of Medicine & Health Sciences, 2024, 5(12); doi: 10.25236/AJMHS.2024.051201.
Peng Lu1, Tielong Liu2
1School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, 200093, China
2Department of Orthopaedic Oncology, Changzheng Hospital, Navy Medical University, No. 415 Fengyang Road, Shanghai, 200003, China
This study aims to compare the effectiveness of a blood cleaning device with traditional wet towels in removing blood contamination from skin. Twenty porcine skins were selected as samples and divided into an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group was treated with a blood cleaning device, while the control group was cleaned with a wet towel. The results showed that the qualification rate for blood treatment in the experimental group (62.3%) was significantly higher than that in the control group (34%), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Additionally, the cleaning efficiency of the experimental group (45%) was also significantly higher than that of the control group (18.7%), with a similar statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Furthermore, a user satisfaction survey indicated that 87% of users found the comfort level of the new blood cleaning device to be good, while only 13% of users were satisfied with the traditional method. In conclusion, compared to traditional wet towel wiping, the new blood cleaning device demonstrates higher convenience, speed, and effectiveness in treating blood contamination.
Blood Cleaning Device, Blood Cleanup, Blood-borne Pathogens, Occupational Exposure
Peng Lu, Tielong Liu. Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of blood cleaning devices versus traditional methods in treating skin contaminated with blood. Academic Journal of Medicine & Health Sciences (2024), Vol. 5, Issue 12: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJMHS.2024.051201.
[1] Birnie AJ, Thomas KS, Varma S. Should eye protection be worn during dermatological surgery: prospective observational study. Br J Dermatol. 2007 Jun; 156(6):1258-62.
[2] Collins D, Rice J, Nicholson P, et al. Quantification of facial contamination with blood during orthopaedic procedures. J Hosp Infect. 2000 May;45(1):73-5.
[3] Auta A, Adewuyi EO, Tor-Anyiin A, Edor JP, Kureh GT, Khanal V, Oga E, Adeloye D. Global prevalence of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Dec 1;47(6):1972-1980.
[4] Mengistu DA, Dirirsa G, Mati E, et al. Global Occupational Exposure to Blood and Body Fluids among Healthcare Workers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2022 Jun3;2022:5732046.
[5] Lin, Cuirong, Yang, Yueling, Zha, Hongji, et al. "A Study on the Cleaning Effectiveness of Two Types of Cleaning and Sterilizing Devices for Endoscopic Instruments." Chinese Journal of Disinfection, 2021, 38(08): 578-580.
[6] Zhang, Chunfei, Ren, Lingfei, Wang, Xiaoqing, et al. "Impact of Preservation Methods on the Cleaning Effectiveness of Blood-Contaminated Instruments."Chinese Journal of Disinfection, 2014, 31(07): 786-787.
[7] Yuen MF, Chen DS, Dusheiko GM, et al. Hepatitis B virus infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018 Jun 7;4:18035
[8] Fry DE. Occupational risks of blood exposure in the operating room. Am Surg. 2007 Jul;73(7): 637-46.
[9] Mohebati A, Davis JM, Fry DE. Current risks of occupational blood-borne viral infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2010 Jun; 11(3):325-31.
[10] Kasatpibal N, Whitney JD, Katechanok S, et al. Practices and impacts post-exposure to blood and body fluid in operating room nurses: A cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud.2016 May;57:39-47.