You are here

BMI Sarum Road Hospital Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 November 2012
Date of Publication: 4 December 2012
Inspection Report published 4 December 2012 PDF

People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection (outcome 8)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Providers of services comply with the requirements of regulation 12, with regard to the Code of Practice for health and adult social care on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 7 November 2012, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Reasons for our judgement

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. All personal protective equipment was available for staff. During our visit we observed this being used appropriately.

All staff showed awareness for good hand hygiene. We saw that antibacterial gel dispensers were available in prominent places around the hospital for the use of staff, patients and visitors. Laminated posters demonstrating good hand hygiene techniques were displayed above hand wash sinks. A member of staff described to us the hand hygiene teaching session they had organised and delivered. All staff we spoke with told us they had taken part in infection prevention and control training.

There was a dedicated Central Sterile Supply Department (CSSD) which ensured that sterile equipment was available for procedures carried out at the hospital. All instruments were decontaminated off site with collections and deliveries twice a day. Staff we spoke with felt that this routine was acceptable. In an emergency, they told us, a four hour turn around time was possible. The CSSD had a fulltime member of staff who ensured that the appropriate equipment was decontaminated and available when required. This person had undergone specific training for their role. The service, as far as it was able, used single use instruments, especially for endoscopic (keyhole) surgery. This meant the medical device was used for an individual patient during a single procedure and then discarded.

We saw that in theatre there were procedures in place to keep clean and dirty instruments separate. This was made easier by the design of the building. We were told by staff that the segregation of instruments was strictly maintained. We also observed this in practice.

The service had systems in place to monitor the prevention and control of infection. The service had an infection control policy which named the person who was head of infection prevention and control. Staff we spoke with knew who was responsible for infection prevention and control and were aware of how to contact them for help and advice. Each hospital department had a link nurse for infection prevention and control. We saw a recent infection control audit which had been completed. No areas for improvement had been identified in the audit report. Infection control link meetings took place every two months.

The service had a contract for the disposal of various types of hazardous and clinical waste. We were able to see consignment notes and quarterly returns which confirmed that waste was collected regularly. The service also had a waste management policy which was regularly reviewed. The service had appointed a senior member of staff as waste officer to oversee the implementation of the waste management policy.