You are here

Mr Reginald P J O'Neill Dental Practice

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 February 2014
Date of Publication: 6 March 2014
Inspection Report published 06 March 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 14 February 2014, 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

When we visited the practice we looked to see whether the provider was protecting the people who used the service and staff from exposure to a health care related infection. We also checked to see if the provider was following the Department of Health's guidance, Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05): Decontamination in primary care dental practices.

The decontamination room was set up in line with published guidance and supplies of personal protective equipment were available for staff to use. The provider had a hatch in the wall between the surgery and the decontamination room, where used instruments were placed prior to cleaning and sterilising. This reduced the risk of contamination because instruments did not have to be physically carried from one room to another. A separate hatch was also available for clean instruments to be returned to the clinical area.

The practice made use of a combination of cleaning procedures. Manual cleaning took place where appropriate and use was made of an ultra-sonic bath and/or a washer/disinfector. Instruments were then examined under a magnifying glass before being sterilised. Once sterilised they were sealed, packaged, dated and stored correctly in the clinical area.

Daily, weekly and monthly maintenance checks were undertaken on the decontamination equipment in use at the practice. A daily checklist was available for staff to use to ensure these were carried out. Records we viewed over several weeks reflected that the equipment was in good working order and monitored regularly.

An infection prevention control lead had been appointed at the practice who was responsible for oversight of all procedures and processes. An infection control policy was in place. This gave clear guidance on the way instruments should be cleaned, sterilised and stored and included the procedures to follow for the general cleaning of the practice. Infection control audits were taking place every six months.

The practice offered sedation treatment for the more intrusive treatments and also for nervous patients. The provider had two cats at the practice that remained in the kitchen of the premises throughout the day. They were used occasionally in the waiting room area for nervous patients to hold and stroke to reassure them prior to receiving treatment. We recognised that this might support patients but consider that it is an infection control issue. We discussed this with the provider on the day of our visit and subsequently and they have agreed to suspend this activity until they have obtained definitive advice from the Department of Health and General Dental Council.

The clinical area was clean, tidy and uncluttered. A checklist was available for staff to use to ensure that all infection control tasks had been undertaken. The dental chair was in good condition and protective covers were in use to allow easy cleaning and help reduce the risk of infection. The work surfaces and flooring were of the recommended type.

The general cleaning of the waiting room and reception area was undertaken by the staff working there and cleaning checklists were available. These included the types of cleaning equipment and materials to use. The practice used coloured mops to help prevent cross contamination. There were appropriate arrangements in place for disposing of clinical waste matter. Sharps bins were appropriately placed, labelled and dated.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the temperature at which to wash their uniforms and wore a clean one daily. We found that there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.