You are here

Archived: 6 Russell Gardens

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 September 2013
Date of Publication: 26 October 2013
Inspection Report published 26 October 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 26 September 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider.

We also looked at recent satisfaction survey results.

Our judgement

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

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Reasons for our judgement

There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. There was an infection control policy and an infection control lead who was responsible for ensuring that all protocols were followed. All dental staff received infection control training in 2013. The dental nurses were responsible for cleaning all areas of the practice. Personal protective equipment was available for staff.

There were appropriate decontamination procedures in place and clearly defined ''dirty'' and ''clean'' areas in the decontamination room. One dental nurse talked us through the process for the decontamination of reusable dental instruments. They described how the equipment was used, checked and maintained in line with the Department of Health’s Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05): Decontamination in primary care dental practices. We saw daily and weekly records were maintained to evidence the autoclave and washer disinfector were in good working order.

Dental staff informed us that their last infection control audit was completed in 2012 however on the day of the inspection the provider was not able to provide us with a copy of this. Staff confirmed that infection control audits were not completed every six months as a minimum as recommended in line with the HTM 01-05. We were therefore not assured that there were effective arrangements in place to verify where there were gaps in the decontamination and infection control process. For instance we looked through the drawers of the dental surgery. We found that a number of dental items used for dental treatment had expired. These items were removed and disposed of immediately by staff. The provider may wish to note that there were no arrangements in place to verify when these items were due to expire.

A legionella risk assessment was last completed in September 2011 by an external agency. All results indicated the water was of satisfactory quality. No actions had been identified.

The practice had arrangements for the storage and disposal of clinical, domestic and sharps waste. However, on the day of the inspection we saw a large domestic bin bag left open on the floor of the decontamination room.