You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 May 2013
Date of Publication: 1 June 2013
Inspection Report published 01 June 2013 PDF | 87.77 KB

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 22 May 2013, 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, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and received feedback from people using comment cards. We reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Reasons for our judgement

The people we spoke with who used the service told us the practice was always clean and pleasant. On the day of our inspection the practice was noted to be clean and well maintained.

Staff were seen to comply with the infection prevention and control practices by wearing protective clothing and washing hands appropriately. We were told the practice is cleaned thoroughly each evening. The provider should note the cleaning cupboards and equipment were not appropriately labelled in accordance with infection prevention and control guidance.

The practice had a lead person who took responsibility for ensuring staff understood the infection control policy and practices to prevent the spread of infection. All clinical staff had hepatitis B vaccination certificates and these were seen in their personnel files. The nine staff we spoke with told us they had received infection control training. They demonstrated good knowledge of the principles and practices used to minimise risk.

They told us they had access to an infection control policy, which we saw displayed in the staff area. They also showed us a cleaning policy for the surgery. This included a daily cleaning schedule and a routine for cleaning the surgery between patients. We observed the nurses cleaning the surgery between patients were using appropriate infection control techniques. This meant staff understood how to protect people from the spread of infection.

We read in the personnel records that staff had received training in infection control and decontamination practices. We saw they received regular updates through their ongoing E learning and practice meetings where information update was seen to be a standing agenda item.

The practice had installed a system to meet the essential standard required by the Department of Health’s - Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices (HTM01-05). While it did not have a separate decontamination room there was a clear flow from dirty to clean in the surgery. It was then moved to the autoclave from which equipment was appropriately stored. This followed good practice guidelines to minimise the risk of spreading infection. We were shown a recent audit against the HTM01-05 criteria had been completed. This showed the practice was compliant with the regulations.

All the surgery rooms were equipped with hand wash basins and were seen to be clean and well maintained. We observed that each surgery was equipped with two bowls for washing and rinsing instruments after use, and a magnifying glass with light for staff to examine cleaned items. There was an autoclave available for each surgery for sterilising equipment. The dental instruments were processed and sterilised through appropriate processes. We saw records that showed the machines were checked and maintained in line with the manufacturer's requirements to ensure they were working correctly.

We were shown the daily, weekly and monthly test schedules for washing and sterilizing equipment which had been signed by staff sign to prove these had been done. The provider should note this was not the case in the dental hygienist’s surgery. These tests included periodic testing to detect any residual protein left on the instruments.

We saw that regular tests of the water quality and an external audit of the water quality had been undertaken. The results of these showed it met the relevant criteria, for the benefit of people who used the service.