You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 September 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

During our inspection on 6 August 2013 we found the dentist to be non-compliant and served a warning notice on 16 August 2013 with respect to infection control practices. At our follow-up inspection on 26 September 2013 we found that the dentist was compliant with the warning notice and people were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed and action taken. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

For example, we found that most items of emergency medication and equipment recommended by the Resuscitation Council UK were in place. Policies and procedures were in place with regard to, for example, the decontamination of instruments and the cleaning of the practice. We observed that the decontamination process was compliant with requirements. The autoclave, which sterilized instruments, had been serviced and tests to provide the required validation certificate were booked.

Risk assessments had been undertaken and the dentist was firming up a plan to audit practices. The dentist had audited their decontamination processes using the tool recommended by the Department of Health's Health Technical Memorandum 01-05. This meant that people could be assured that the dentist was minimizing any risks they could face and continuously working to improve practices and the quality of service offered.

Inspection carried out on 6 August 2013

During a routine inspection

Patients we spoke with were happy with the quality of the care they received. However, we found the dentist to be non-compliant. For example, there were no arrangements in place to deal with a patient collapse. The dentist had none of the recommended emergency equipment or medication.

Systems to reduce the risk and spread of infection were limited. The dentist was unaware of, and non-compliant with, the Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05), with which all dentists were expected to be compliant by December 2010. For example, the provider did not have an infection control policy and could not show us evidence of the dentist’s or dental nurse’s training in basic life support or infection control, other than hand hygiene. Evidence was provided of the dental nurse’s Hepatitis B status two days after the inspection, but not of the dentist's. The provider could not show us their waste management contracts or invoices and we could not be sure how clinical waste was disposed of.

The dentist did not have systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of services provided. Audits of practices were not undertaken. Practice-wide risks were not assessed. Patient surveys were not carried out. However, people we spoke with said they had no complaints or concerns about the quality of the service.