| 摘要: |
| 目的 评价抗压性防护面膜在抗击新型冠状病毒肺炎的医护人员中的应用效果。方法 采用便利抽样法选择2020年1月26日至2月24日军队支援武汉医疗队的抗疫一线医护人员120名作为研究对象，将其分为空白组、对照组和观察组，每组40名。空白组未使用抗压性敷料，对照组使用水胶体敷料后佩戴面部防护用具，观察组使用抗压性防护面膜后佩戴面部防护用具。比较干预结束时3组抗疫一线医护人员的面部舒适度、面部压力性损伤情况及不良反应。结果 干预结束时，空白组抗疫一线医护人员面部舒适度评分为6.00（6.00，7.00）分，对照组为5.00（4.00，5.00）分，观察组为1.00（0.50，2.00）分，3组抗疫一线医护人员面部舒适度的得分比较差异有统计学意义（H=97.392，P<0.001）；根据秩均值进一步推断，空白组面部舒适度秩均值最大（96.68），观察组秩均值最小（20.88）。干预结束时，空白组抗疫一线医护人员中面部无损伤者3例（7.5%，3/40）、1期面部压力性损伤者28例（70.0%，28/40）、2期面部压力性损伤者9例（22.5%，9/40）；对照组抗疫一线医护人员中无面部损伤者27例（67.5%，27/40）、1期面部压力性损伤者13例（32.5%，13/40）；观察组抗疫一线医护人员中无面部损伤者37例（92.5%，37/40）、1期面部压力性损伤者3例（7.5%，3/40）；3组抗疫一线医护人员面部压力性损伤发生率比较差异有统计学意义（χ2=71.863，P<0.001），观察组抗疫一线医护人员面部压力性损伤发生率最低。3组均未发生皮肤过敏反应，均无人感染COVID-19。结论 使用抗压性防护面膜能有效降低抗疫一线医护人员面部压力性损伤发生率，改善佩戴面部防护用具的面部舒适度，可作为抗疫一线医护人员的防护用品配备。 |
| 关键词: 防护装置 压疮 医务人员 新型冠状病毒肺炎 |
| DOI：10.16781/j.0258-879x.2020.09.0976 |
| 投稿时间：2020-06-01修订日期：2020-07-28 |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Effectiveness of anti-pressure protective mask for medical personnel fighting against coronavirus disease 2019 |
| JIN Ting-yan1,WANG Mao-mao1,2,LIU Yan1,LI Dong-mei1* |
(1. Department of Neurosurgery, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University(Second Military Medical University), Shanghai 200433, China;
2. Department of Infectious Diseases, Huoshenshan Hospital, Wuhan 430100, Hubei, China
*Corresponding author) |
| Abstract: |
| Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of anti-pressure protective mask for medical personnel fighting against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Convenience sampling method was used to select 120 military frontline anti-epidemic medical personnel supporting Wuhan medical team from Jan. 26 to Feb. 24, 2020, and they were evenly divided into blank group, control group and observation group. The blank group did not use anti-pressure dressings, the control group wore face protection equipments after using hydrocolloid dressings, and the observation group wore face protection equipments after using anti-pressure protective mask. At the end of the intervention, the facial comfort, facial pressure injuries, and adverse effects were compared between the three groups. Results At the end of the intervention, the facial comfort score was 6.00 (6.00, 7.00) in the blank group, 5.00 (4.00, 5.00) in the control group, and 1.00 (0.50, 2.00) in the observation group, with significant differences found among the three groups (H=97.392, P<0.001). According to the further inference of the rank mean, the blank group had the largest facial comfort rank mean (96.68), while the observation group had the smallest facial comfort rank mean (20.88). At the end of the intervention, three cases (7.5%, 3/40) in the blank group had no facial injury, 28 cases (70.0%, 28/40) had facial pressure injury at stage 1, and nine cases (22.5%, 9/40) at stage 2; 27 cases (67.5%, 27/40) in the control group had no facial injury and 13 cases (32.5%, 13/40) had facial pressure injury at stage 1; 37 cases (92.5%, 37/40) in the observation group had no facial injury and three cases (7.5%, 3/40) had facial pressure injury at stage 1. There was significant difference in the incidence of facial pressure injuries among the three groups (χ2=71.863, P<0.001). The observation group had the lowest facial pressure injury rate among the three groups. There was no skin allergic reaction in the three groups and none of them was infected with COVID-19. Conclusion Anti-pressure protective mask can effectively reduce the incidence of facial pressure injuries and improve the facial comfort when wearing facial protective equipment, and it can be used for protecting frontline anti-epidemic medical personnel. |
| Key words: protective devices pressure sore medical personnel coronavirus disease 2019 |
