You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 June 2014
Date of Publication: 23 July 2014
Inspection Report published 23 July 2014 PDF | 62.14 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 carried out a visit on 18 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

There were systems in place for the safe disposal of clinical waste. The practice used a specialist contractor to remove clinical waste from the premises, who provided lockable clinical waste bins that were stored in a dedicated area outside the building. We saw that these were locked and observed that clinical waste had been removed to this area. We were told by staff that the practice had reviewed how clinical waste was removed from the building and saw that a revised route was used that no longer required waste to be transported through the staff room kitchen area. This meant that the risks associated with clinical waste was minimised for patients and others.

We looked at the decontamination room and saw that this was clean, tidy and clutter free. A door had been fitted to separate this room from the staff room kitchen, which meant that the risks of contaminated air entering the kitchen had been reduced.

We observed that clinical instruments and equipment were appropriately stored in the surgeries. For example, single-use instruments were stored in purpose made containers with protective covers and kept in closed cabinet drawers. This meant that the risks of contamination were minimised.

The practice had replaced clinical equipment when needed. For example, we saw that a broken scaling tip had been sent for repair and returned to the practice labelled ‘beyond repair’. We saw that the practice had purchased two new scaling tips to ensure that there were sufficient numbers available in each surgery.

We spoke with clinical staff at the practice, who told us that they received annual infection control training, were aware of the procedures to follow and demonstrated their knowledge in relation to single-use clinical equipment. They said that equipment was always readily available and that the surgeries were re-stocked as required. They also told us that they had no concerns regarding infection control at the practice and that any issues or changes to procedure were discussed with the provider at staff meetings.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. We saw that the practice had implemented six monthly infection control audits and had taken action to address any issues that arose, for example, clinical waste management. This meant that effective infection control monitoring had been implemented in accordance with national guidance.