You are here

Cambridge Court Dental Centre

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 December 2013
Date of Publication: 10 January 2014
Inspection Report published 10 January 2014 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 12 December 2013, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

We also spoke to one person using the service.

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.

Reasons for our judgement

There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The practice appeared clean and well maintained on the day of the inspection. There was an infection control policy and an infection control lead who was responsible for ensuring that all protocols were followed. There were adequate hand washing facilities and personal protective equipment, such as gloves, which were accessible to staff. Non-clinical areas were cleaned daily by a cleaner and they were required to complete and sign a cleaning checklist when they had finished their duties. Dental nurses were responsible for cleaning all clinical areas of the practice. The chair and surrounding surfaces were cleaned in between appointments.

There was a separate decontamination room and clearly defined ''dirty'' and ''clean'' areas. One dental nurse talked us through the process for the decontamination of reusable dental instruments. They explained how they decontaminated instruments after each session and how they used, checked and maintained the equipment for decontamination and sterilization. Staff manually cleaned and rinsed instruments. The instruments were then checked under a magnifying glass, and placed into a steam steriliser. The instruments were then checked again and packaged. We saw daily records were maintained to evidence the sterilizer was sterilizing properly and in good working order.

Infection control audits were not completed every six months as recommended by the Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices guidance. In addition it was not detailed within the provider’s policy on how often these audits should be completed. They last completed an audit in December 2013. Where issues had been identified we saw actions were taken. However when we looked through the drawers of one of the treatment rooms, we found that a number of dental items used for dental treatment had expired. The provider may wish to note that there were no arrangements in place to verify when these dental items were due to expire.

A legionella risk assessment was last completed in 2011 by an external agency. All results indicated the water was of satisfactory quality. These checks were completed to monitor the growth of legionella and other microorganisms in the water and take action if required. The next legionella risk assessment was booked for 25 January 2014. The practice used the alpron system to purify the water in its dental lines and staff told us they were flushed daily.

There were procedures for dealing with blood borne viruses and the safe transfer of dental instruments to keep staff safe. The practice had arrangements for the storage and disposal of clinical and sharps waste.