You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13, 19 August 2014
Date of Publication: 9 October 2014
Inspection Report published 09 October 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 carried out a visit on 13 August 2014 and 19 August 2014, talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and talked with other regulators or the Department of Health. We were accompanied by a specialist advisor.

Our judgement

Patients were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed as regards decontamination rooms and surgeries .

Reasons for our judgement

On our previous inspection we found the provider did not have effective systems to ensure patients and staff were protected from the risk of infection and they had failed to maintain appropriate standards of cleanliness in relation to the premises and equipment.

We carried out a responsive follow up visit and found that the provider had carried out a number of improvements to comply with the regulations.

The dental nurse at the practice demonstrated to us the decontamination process, it was in line with essential standards as stated in HTM 01 05, the Department of Health’s guidelines for decontamination in Primary Care Dental Practice. The nurse showed us the process from taking the dirty instruments through to clean and ready for use again. It was clearly observed by us that clean and dirty instruments did not decontaminate each other. There was a full range of personal protective equipment for patient and staff use which included gloves, face visors and disposable bibs. This meant that patients can be assured that they were protected from the risk of infection. The provider may wish to note that the purchase of a digital thermometer for maintenance of the correct temperature of the water during manual scrubbing is recommended.

We saw that the daily, weekly and quarterly checks were being recorded for the ultra-sonic cleaning bath and the steriliser in accordance with current guidelines which meant that decontamination equipment was being maintained in a safe an effective way. The practice maintained a reasonable level of equipment stock including sufficient numbers of dental hand pieces and other small dental instruments which meant that the practice could deal effectively with a normal patient list at each treatment session.

All of the instruments were pouched and it was obvious which items were single use. The single items were clearly new. All surgeries had the appropriate personal protective equipment available for staff and patient use. This meant that patients were protected from the risk of infection.

The dental water lines were generally maintained in accordance with current guidelines although the provider may wish to note that flushing of the dental water lines between patients is considered good practice. This meant that patients were being protected from Legionella infection which could occur if the dental water lines were not adequately maintained.

The surgery contained a mercury and bodily fluids spill kit which would enable the practice staff to deal effectively with a mercury or blood spillage if this occurred during dental treatment.

We saw that the decontamination room was now fit for purpose. The room itself had been fully refurbished to an acceptable standard throughout. The surgery itself had been tidied a new floor laid and general clutter had been removed.