You are here

Archived: Arta Dental Care

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 August 2013
Date of Publication: 18 September 2013
Inspection Report published 18 September 2013 PDF | 82.15 KB

People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection (outcome 8)

Not met 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 8 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate cleaning had not been undertaken.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked around the practice and found it to be tidy. However, we saw some parts of the practice were not clean. We were told that the domestic cleaning tasks were shared between reception staff and the dental nurse. There was no domestic cleaning schedule in place. This meant that the practice had no system to track what areas had been cleaned, by who and when. Some parts of the communal areas were seen to be dusty and grubby. For example, the radiator in the hall way was very dusty. This was close to one of the doors for the treatment room.

We saw the practice had an infection control policy. However, there was no date on the policy and no review date was identified.

The decontamination processes took place within the treatment room. There was an area at the side of the treatment room where all cleaning of instruments took place. The dental nurse verbally described and demonstrated to us the routine infection control procedures associated with cleaning instruments'. Dirty instruments were initially placed into the ultrasonic cleaner. The instruments were then rinsed, dried and inspected before being placed into the autoclave steriliser. The instruments were then packaged and date stamped. The dental nurse described the processes that were used to clean the treatment room in between patients. This involved wiping down areas that had been used with disinfectant cleaner.

We were told by the dentist that the autoclave steriliser was tested on days when treatments took place. However, within the record book that was used to document when test strips for the autoclave had been completed we saw that some dates were missing. There was no information to indicate why testing had not been completed for that date. Therefore it was unclear if the autoclave had been tested when treatments took place. This could leave people at risk of harm from cross infection as the provider could not ensure the autoclave was functioning properly.

There was no evidence of infection control audits within the practice. This meant that the quality of cleaning had not been monitored.

We saw records that demonstrated all clinical staff had undertaken recent infection control training.

We observed that there were a supply of disposable gloves and masks for staff to use. This meant that the risk of cross contamination was reduced. We saw evidence that there was a service contract in place for the safe disposal of clinical waste.

We saw evidence of other polices relating to infection control. For example, a sharps injury policy, which staff had signed to state they had read and understood. These policies provided additional guidance on infection control and dealing with needle stick injuries.