You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 April 2014
Date of Publication: 6 June 2014
Inspection Report published 06 June 2014 PDF | 63.18 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 29 April 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider and were accompanied by a specialist advisor.

We spoke with the provider.

Our judgement

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed and people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Reasons for our judgement

At our last inspection in December 2012 we found that an infection control audit had not been completed within the last six months. Completion of this six monthly audit is listed as good practice in a Department of Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM01-05) document which sets out in detail the processes and practices essential to prevent the transmission of infections and provide clean safe care. The document lists an audit as an "essential quality requirement" that must be achieved. At this inspection in April 2014 we saw that an audit of infection control had been carried out and confirmed essential requirements were being met. The provider may wish to note that there was no formal action or timelines to state what had been highlighted during the audit and when the issues would be addressed.

At this inspection we saw evidence that all staff had recently attended a course on decontamination in dental practice and on effective hand washing. We saw evidence that hand washing posters were displayed in clinical areas. The provider was compliant with current infection control guidelines.

At our last inspection in December 2012 we saw that there was no evidence to show that the dentist and other members of staff were vaccinated against Hepatitis B. At this inspection we saw evidence to show that staff had been tested for immunity to Hepatitis B or had appointments booked for this to take place. This meant that patients were protected against Hep B infection from staff.

At our last inspection in December 2012 we saw some issues which increased the risk of infection. For example we also observed that there was a tropical fish tank in the surgery and a record card cabinet stored in the treatment room. At this inspection we saw that both items had been removed. Since the last inspection the provider had also introduced a dedicated hand washing facility in the decontamination room. This meant that the risk of the spread of infection had been reduced.

Our clinical advisor discussed ways of further reducing the spread of inspection at the practice. These included removing equipment not used for decontamination purposes from the decontamination room. For example an x-ray developing machine was being stored in the decontamination room. The provider gave assurances that this would be removed as a matter of priority. The provider may also wish to note that there was no method of ensuring the correct air flow takes place as advised in Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM01-05).

At this inspection we found that all areas of the dental surgery and decontamination areas were clean, tidy and free from offensive odours. However, the provider may wish to note that the work surface which supported the autoclave had a missing piece of laminate and the work surface we observed had no backsplash. This meant that effective cleaning would not be possible.

At the last inspection in December 2012 we observed that staff and the dentist were wearing outdoor clothing in the surgery and the decontamination room. At this inspection we found that the clinical staff we spoke with had a good understanding of infection control procedures. We saw staff wearing personal protective equipment which they changed into on arriving at work further reducing the risk of cross infection.

At our last inspection we saw effective decontamination of instruments being performed by staff. At this inspection we also saw correct processes being followed.

At the last inspection there were no service records produced for the compressor and pressure vessel equipment in the surgery. At this inspection we were provided with the latest pressure vessel testing certificates for the autoclave and compressor. This showed that the equipment was safe, effective for use and meant that decontamination equipment was maintained to the standards set out in current guidelines. This meant that patients could be confident of receiving safe and effective care.

At this inspection we saw