You are here

Archived: The Mead Dental Practice

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15 November 2013
Date of Publication: 20 December 2013
Inspection Report published 20 December 2013 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 15 November 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

We saw evidence that everyone involved in clinical treatment had received appropriate infection control training. We saw that the provider carried out regular audits of its infection control system. This meant that people received care and treatment in a clean and hygienic environment.

Evidence was present to show the dentist, hygienist, and other members of staff were vaccinated against hepatitis B to ensure the safety of the people using the service.

The Department of Health published in November 2009 a document called Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices (HTM01-05). It set out in detail the processes and practices essential to prevent the transmission of infections and provide clean safe care. Staff had received training in “Best practice” in October 2012.

The practice had two treatments rooms, one being used wholly by the dentist and the second by the practice hygienist. We saw that in each of the two surgeries the flooring was vinyl in the working area which meant that it could be easily cleaned. All surfaces were clean and easily defined for “clean” area and “dirty” area for used instruments which meant that clean equipment was not contaminated.

A dental nurse assisted in each treatment room. One nurse showed us the decontamination procedures, including the packaging and storage of clean instruments. This process was carried out in the room dedicated to the decontamination process. There was a separate sink for hand washing with liquid soap and paper towels. Staff put on their protective gloves, apron, mask and visor. After each patient had left, used instruments were placed in a sealed box in the surgery before being taken to the decontamination room. Staff showed us how they scrubbed the instruments and then examined them under a magnifying lamp for debris before placing them in an ultrasonic cleaner that was used to clean the instruments. They then demonstrated how the instruments were sterilized in the autoclave. The clean instruments were then bagged in the clean area. Clean bagged instruments were stored in the clean area of the treatment room. This meant that clean instruments would not become contaminated. This process was carried out after each visit.

We saw evidence of the tests that staff carried out to ensure safety and cleanliness. The vacuum autoclave was tested every morning, and after the surgery closed. Weekly soil tests and protein tests were carried out to check for cleanliness and efficacy. We saw records of these tests being carried out.

A contract was in place for the collection and safe disposal of clinical waste. There were supplies of hand soap, paper towels gloves and aprons for staff to use. Hand washing facilities were available in both of the treatment rooms and the decontamination room. This meant that staff were able to wash their hands appropriately to reduce the risk of cross infection.