| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:Učinkovitost uporabe lifevac sukcijskega pripomočka in sesalnika pri odstranitvi tujka iz dihalne poti
Authors:ID Kraševec, Maj (Author)
ID Koželj, Anton (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
ID Fijačko, Nino (Comentor)
Files:.pdf VS_Krasevec_Maj_2025.pdf (922,81 KB)
MD5: B0BE88887F7761453240ECCC0C3E613F
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Bachelor thesis/paper
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:FZV - Faculty of Health Sciences
Abstract:Uvod: Zadušitve so nujni pojav, ki zahteva takojšnjo pomoč, ki v Evropi temelji na smernicah Evropskega združevanja za reanimacijo. V literaturi so zapisane številne alternative za odstranjevanje tujka iz dihalne poti, ena od njih sta LifeVac sukcijski pripomoček in sesalnik z nastavkom in obrazno masko. Metode: Izvedli smo eksperiment, v katerem so sodelovali študenti zdravstvene nege. Izvedli smo dva scenarija, ki sta potekala v simuliranem okolju. Žrtev v obliki simulacijske lutke je bila v enem prostoru, LifeVac sukcijski pripomoček in sesalnik z nastavkom in obrazno masko pa v drugem. Ocenjevali smo hitrost in število potrebnih sukcij z LifeVac sukcijskim pripomočkom in sesalnikom z nastavkom in obrazno masko posebej. Rezultati: Sodelovalo je 23 študentov zdravstvene nege. Pri odstranitvi tujka iz dihalne poti je bil LifeVac sukcijski pripomoček uspešen v 91 % (21/23), sesalnik z nastavkom in obrazno masko pa v 96 % (22/23). Povprečna hitrost odstranitve tujka iz dihalne poti pri uporabi LifeVac sukcijskega pripomočka je 20,8±8,2 sekunde, pri sesalniku z nastavkom in obrazno masko pa 38,4±8,7 sekunde. Povprečno je LifeVac sukcijski pripomoček za odpravo tujka potreboval dve sukciji, sesalnik z nastavkom in obrazno masko pa eno. Razprava in zaključek: Študenti zdravstvene nege so izrazili večje zadovoljstvo z uporabo LifeVac sukcijskega pripomočka. Menimo, da bi bilo smiselno obe alternativi vključiti v domače okolje, vendar so za to potrebne dodatne raziskave.
Keywords:LifeVac, sesalnik, tujek, dihalna pot, sukcija
Place of publishing:Maribor
Publisher:[M. Kraševec]
Year of publishing:2025
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-92328 New window
UDC:616-001.8:615.47(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:235426819 New window
Publication date in DKUM:22.05.2025
Views:145
Downloads:40
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:FZV
:
Copy citation
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and Share



Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Licences

License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:30.03.2025

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Effectiveness of using the lifevac anti-choking device and a vacuum cleaner for removal of foreign body airway obstruction
Abstract:Introduction: Choking is an emergency that requires immediate assistance, which in Europe is based on the quidelines of the European Resusctitation Council. We wrote about numerous alternatives for removing foreight body airway obstruction, one of which is the LifeVac suction device and a vacuum cleaner with attachment and face mask. Methods: We did an experiment in which nursing students participated. We ran two scenarios that took place in a simulated environment. The victim in the form of a simulation doll was in one room, and the LifeVac suction device and vacuum cleaner with attachment and face mask were in the other. We evaluated the speed and number of suctions required, with both alternatives in particular. Results: 23 nursing students participated. The LifeVac suction device was 91%(21/23) successful in removing the foreign body airway obstruction, while the vacuum cleaner with attachment and face mask was successful in 96% (22/23). The average rate of removal when using the LifeVac suction device was 20.8±8.2 seconds, and 38.4±8.7 seconds for a vacuum cleaner with attachment and face mask. On average, the LifeVac suction device required two suctions. The vacuum cleaner with attachment and a face mask required one. Discussion and conclusion: Nursing students expressed greater satisfaction with the use of LifeVac suction device. We believe it would make sense to incorporate both alternatives into home environment. We also want to do further researches.
Keywords:Lifevac, vacuum cleaner, obstruction, airway, suction


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica