You are here

Archived: The D:NTAL Clinic

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 March 2013
Date of Publication: 4 April 2013
Inspection Report published 4 April 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 6 March 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

All the people that we spoke with told us that they had no concerns about the cleanliness of the surgery. One person said, “It is a clean and spotless surgery and the dentist always wear gloves and a mask.” Everyone we spoke with said they had never caught an infection following treatment.

On the day we inspected the practice we saw that the surgery was clean and organised. There were two rooms was used for the decontamination and sterilisation of used instruments. One room was used for decontamination and the other for bagging and storing the sterilised instruments. A dental nurse took us through the process used for decontamination and sterilisation of instruments. This consisted of the instruments being carried from the treatment rooms in a lidded box the instruments were soaked, scrubbed, checked for debris under light. If they were visually clean they were oiled, placed in the autoclave then bagged when sterilised and marked for use within 21 days. We looked at a sample of the sterilised instruments stored in the treatment room and we saw that these were all in date.

We saw that records were kept of the daily decontamination cycles and daily cleaning schedules. This showed that instruments were sterilised and that the practice was cleaned and checked for cleanliness.

We saw that a contract was in place for the collection and safe disposal of clinical waste. We saw information which showed that clinically waste was regularly collected for safe disposal. There were supplies of hand soap, paper towels, gloves and aprons for staff to use. Hand washing facilities were available in the treatment room and the decontamination room, so staff were able to wash their hands appropriately to prevent the spread of infection.

We saw that equipment used for the sterilisation of instruments were checked regularly to ensure they were in working order. We saw evidence to show that everyone involved in clinical treatment had received infection control training.

Infection control policies were in place to support and guide staff on how to reduce the risks of cross infections. We saw that the provider had completed up to date audits of the infection control system. This meant that the infection control system was managed so as to reduce the risk of cross infection.

However, we observed that portable spittoons were used. We were told that only two of these were currently available for use and were sterilised after they had been used. We asked what would happen if two people received treatment at the same time and other people were due for treatment. We were told that on rare occasions the hand washing sinks in the treatment rooms had been used for people to spit in whilst they were receiving treatment. We viewed this as poor practice. The provider assured us that this practice would cease with immediate effect and we saw evidence to show that an order had been placed for additional spittoons. Given the level of improvements that has already been made to the practice, we are reassured that this practice will cease.