You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 September 2013
Date of Publication: 25 October 2013
Inspection Report published 25 October 2013 PDF | 69.26 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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 26 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider.

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

Adequate systems to reduce the risk and spread of infection were in place. During our inspection on 6 August 2013 the dentist had said he was unaware of the Department of Health's Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05), with which dentists were required to be compliant by December 2010. At our inspection on 26 September 2013 we saw that the dentist had familiarised himself with this document, identified what was needed, and had taken appropriate action to meet HTM01-05 guidance.

During our inspection on 6 August 2013 we found there were no written policies or procedures and there was no evidence of the dentist's Hepatitis B immunisation status. At our inspection on 26 September 2013 we saw that policies and procedures were in place including, for example, on infection control and the decontamination of instruments. We also saw policies relating to the management and disposal of clinical waste and the cleaning of the practice.

During our inspection on 6 August 2013 we observed that the process followed by the dentist to decontaminate instruments was not compliant with the specifications of HTM01-05, including the hand washing technique used. At our inspection on 26 September 2013 we observed that the decontamination process was compliant. The dentist had also since produced a brief written plan, as required by HTM01-05, confirming his intent to consider the feasibility of moving the decontamination process to a separate room.

During our inspection on 6 August 2013 we found that the autoclave had not been serviced. At our inspection on 26 September 2013 we saw paperwork which showed that the autoclave had been serviced on 30 August 2013. We saw that a schedule of daily and weekly tests required had been produced and completed. The dentist provided evidence they had booked for a further test on the autoclave to be undertaken during the week commencing 30 September. This would provide the validation certificate required by HTM01-05. The tests and validation provided assurance that the autoclave was sterilizing instruments effectively.

During our inspection on 6 August 2013 we were not provided with evidence of a clinical waste disposal contract. We had observed that the room in which clinical waste was kept, whilst awaiting collection, was open. At our inspection on 26 September 2013 we found that clinical waste was appropriately managed. We saw a clinical waste disposal contract and waste consignment notes dated after our 6 August 2013 inspection. We saw that the room in the practice where the clinical waste was kept was bolted.

These findings show that the dentist was compliant with the Department of Health's HTM 01-05 government directives and patients were protected as the risk of people acquiring a health care associated infection had been minimized.