You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 June 2012
Date of Publication: 24 July 2012
Inspection Report published 24 July 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

Our judgement

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

The provider was meeting this standard.

User experience

We spoke with people by telephone following our visit and we were told that the premises were always clean and that protective equipment was used by staff and patients.

Other evidence

As part of our inspection we viewed the service’s infection control policy which was detailed. A member of clinical staff had been designated as infection control lead and had implemented clear procedures.

The service was supported in infection control procedures by the adoption of practises recommended by an outside advisory body.

We also saw from staff training records that infection control training had been received by all staff and that regular refresher training was planned.

Job descriptions that we saw within the service’s policy files gave a named lead for infection control, radiation protection and other roles.

We viewed the treatment rooms and saw that they appeared to be clean and well maintained. Notices in all treatment rooms indicated clearly defined clean and dirty sectors and the rooms had hand washing sinks with clear hand washing instructions above the sinks.

We asked a dental nurse to demonstrate daily opening and shut down procedures which included cleaning routines, the placing of disposable covers over vulnerable areas and the storage of all items.

We were also given a verbal explanation of the cleaning routine employed between people using the service to ensure control of infection within the treatment room.

One person we spoke with as part of our inspection told us that the practice was “Wonderful, absolutely spotless.” Another person said, “I have no complaints, they are always very good”.

Within each treatment room we saw that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available for use by both staff and people undergoing treatment or care. One member of staff we spoke with told us “We always wear gloves and mask and visors too.”

A person we spoke with who had used the service that day told us “I am always provided with a bib to protect my clothes and glasses where they are needed.”

We spoke with the provider about cleaning routines and were shown colour coded cleaning equipment which we were told was used in line with cleaning and infection control guidelines.

In the service’s files we saw evidence that an infection control support visit from an outside agency had taken place within the last 18 months.

The files maintained by the service contained a thorough infection control risk assessment which was viewed during our inspection.

We asked to see the service’s record of complaints and found none that referred to cleanliness or infection control.

The care records maintained by the service in respect of service users contained full personal medical details. We were told that, where necessary, the record would also contain details of blood borne diseases and the associated risks.

We witnessed a decontamination process being carried out. This involved the cleaning and decontamination of instruments used during treatment. The practice had a separate decontamination room containing separate wash and rinse sinks, a magnifying lens with incorporated light to inspect instruments and decontamination and sterilisation equipment.

We saw that a staff member carried out a thorough cleaning, rinsing and inspection of the instruments before placing them into sterilisation equipment. They wore protective equipment including heavy duty gloves to minimise the risk of injury.

We saw that used instruments were brought to the decontamination room in colour coded “dirty” trays with lids. Instruments that had been sterilised were placed into sealed bags and the expiry date stamped on the bag. These instruments were then transported from the decontamination room to the treatment areas in colour coded “clean” trays. We saw that the full decontamination procedure was clearly laid out in a chart on the wall of the room and gave clear guidance on the procedure.

Also on the wall we saw the procedure to be followed for the disposal of clinical waste and we saw that a large colour coded clinical waste bin was available in the grounds of the premises. We also saw documentation pr