Hilton S
Department of General Practice, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London.
Br J Gen Pract. 1990 Dec;40(341):505-6.
Doctors from 34 practices participated in an audit study which examined inhaler technique in up to 20 of their patients. A new scoring system, applicable to all forms of device, was used. Although the majority of the 422 patients (63%) was using metered dose inhalers, a broad range of other devices was included; most frequently Rotahalers (15%) and spacer devices (9%). For analysis, technique scores were rated as 'good' (score 4 out of 4), 'adequate' (score 3 or 4) and 'inadequate' (score 2 or less). Overall, 25% of patients had inadequate technique. Of all devices, the Turbohaler had the highest proportion of patients with good technique (78%), and metered dose inhalers the lowest (45%). This audit confirms that technique is unsatisfactory for a significant proportion of patients, regardless of the device used. A simple scoring system promotes consistent testing of technique within a practice.
来自34家医疗机构的医生参与了一项审计研究，该研究对他们多达20名患者的吸入器使用技术进行了检查。采用了一种适用于所有类型装置的新评分系统。尽管422名患者中的大多数（63%）使用的是定量吸入器，但也纳入了广泛的其他装置；最常见的是旋转式吸入器（15%）和储雾罐装置（9%）。为了进行分析，技术得分被评定为“良好”（满分4分，得4分）、“合格”（得分3分或4分）和“不合格”（得分2分或更低）。总体而言，25%的患者技术不合格。在所有装置中，都保呼乐使用技术良好的患者比例最高（78%），定量吸入器最低（45%）。这项审计证实，无论使用何种装置，相当一部分患者的技术都不尽人意。一个简单的评分系统有助于在医疗机构内对技术进行统一测试。
