Evaluation of domiciliary long-term oxygen therapy with oxygen concentrators.

Israel journal of medical sciences Pub Date : 1997-01-01
R J Shiner, U Zaretsky, M Mirali, S Benzaray, D Elad
{"title":"Evaluation of domiciliary long-term oxygen therapy with oxygen concentrators.","authors":"R J Shiner,&nbsp;U Zaretsky,&nbsp;M Mirali,&nbsp;S Benzaray,&nbsp;D Elad","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Domiciliary long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is usually supplied by means of oxygen concentrators (OCs). Various factors that determine the efficacy of such a treatment were evaluated. Sixty-three patients, arbitrarily selected from lists of health care providers, were visited at home by a biomedical engineer and a pulmonary function technician. The evaluation consisted of: i) responses to a directed questionnaire, ii) assessment of the OC output characteristics, and iii) measurement of the patient's oxygen saturation (SaO2) at rest with and without oxygen supplement. Only 33% of patients received oxygen treatment for the recommended 12-24 hours/day and 5% of patients waited the recommended 10 minutes of OC warm-up before connection. Filters were cleaned weekly by only 30% of patients and the concentrator was serviced 3-4 times a year in 25% of cases. The OC was thought to be unduly noisy by 24% of patients and connecting tubing of less than 6 meters was fitted to 90% of OCs, thereby limiting patient mobility. Most of the OCs did not yield the recommended oxygen concentration and the flow rate meters on them tended to underread. Therefore, only 22% of patients received the prescribed oxygen supplement. Whilst breathing room air, a substantial proportion of patients had an SaO2 >90%. Improvements are clearly required in terms of medical indications for LTOT, patient education and supervision, supply and maintenance of concentrators and related equipment.</p>","PeriodicalId":14590,"journal":{"name":"Israel journal of medical sciences","volume":"33 1","pages":"23-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Israel journal of medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Domiciliary long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is usually supplied by means of oxygen concentrators (OCs). Various factors that determine the efficacy of such a treatment were evaluated. Sixty-three patients, arbitrarily selected from lists of health care providers, were visited at home by a biomedical engineer and a pulmonary function technician. The evaluation consisted of: i) responses to a directed questionnaire, ii) assessment of the OC output characteristics, and iii) measurement of the patient's oxygen saturation (SaO2) at rest with and without oxygen supplement. Only 33% of patients received oxygen treatment for the recommended 12-24 hours/day and 5% of patients waited the recommended 10 minutes of OC warm-up before connection. Filters were cleaned weekly by only 30% of patients and the concentrator was serviced 3-4 times a year in 25% of cases. The OC was thought to be unduly noisy by 24% of patients and connecting tubing of less than 6 meters was fitted to 90% of OCs, thereby limiting patient mobility. Most of the OCs did not yield the recommended oxygen concentration and the flow rate meters on them tended to underread. Therefore, only 22% of patients received the prescribed oxygen supplement. Whilst breathing room air, a substantial proportion of patients had an SaO2 >90%. Improvements are clearly required in terms of medical indications for LTOT, patient education and supervision, supply and maintenance of concentrators and related equipment.

家用吸氧器长期氧疗效果评价。
居家长期氧疗(LTOT)通常由氧浓缩器(OCs)提供。评估了决定这种治疗效果的各种因素。一名生物医学工程师和一名肺功能技术员到63名患者家中进行了拜访,这些患者是从医疗保健提供者名单中任意挑选出来的。评估包括:i)直接问卷的回答,ii)评估OC输出特征,以及iii)测量患者在休息时的氧饱和度(SaO2),有无补充氧气。只有33%的患者接受了推荐的12-24小时/天的氧气治疗,5%的患者在连接前等待了推荐的10分钟的OC预热。只有30%的患者每周清洗过滤器,25%的患者每年使用浓缩器3-4次。24%的患者认为OC噪音过大,90%的OC安装了小于6米的连接管,从而限制了患者的活动能力。大多数OCs不能产生推荐的氧浓度,其上的流速计往往读数不足。因此,只有22%的患者接受了规定的氧气补充。当呼吸室内空气时,相当比例的患者SaO2 >90%。在lot的医学指征、患者教育和监督、浓缩器和相关设备的供应和维护等方面显然需要改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信