Abstract
Objective To compare the difference of impact on the nursing time consuming between two types of artificial airway humidification, which means HME (heal and mositure exchanger) and HH (heated humidifier).Methods Use HME as experimental group and HH as control group, evaluate the effect of these two types of artificial airway humidification from sputum viscosity, formation of sputum callus, airway spasm and humidification accident, account, and analyze the data by statistic method. Results HME was much better than HH on effect of humidification. The experiment group spent (6.67±1.01 ) min on time consuming for nursing and the control group spent (26.27±1.75) min, the difference between two types of humidification was significant (P ＜ 0. 01) . By the way, HME was much better than HH on the frequency of sputum suction bedclothes replacement (P＜0.05).Conclusions The advantage of HME is decreasing the nursing manpower investment, through saving the time consuming for nursing, relieving strength of nurse work and improving efficacy of artificial airway management. Key words: HME (heal and moisture exchanger); HH (heated humidifier); Nursing time consuming
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
