You are here

Archived: Alexandra Dental Practice

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 June 2013
Date of Publication: 5 July 2013
Inspection Report published 05 July 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 18 June 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

Patients we spoke with had no concerns over the cleanliness of the practice. One person told us, “it is extremely clean; I am very impressed with the facilities.” Others told us, “it is very clean.” And “the cleanliness is very good.”

We toured the practice and noted it was clean and well maintained. We viewed all the surgeries and found them to be clean and free from clutter. The practice worked to best practice infection control guidelines within the Department of Health’s guidance known as HTM 01 05. The HTM 01-05 was designed to assist all registered primary dental care services to meet satisfactory levels of decontamination.

We saw there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff showed us how instruments used in the dentist or hygienist surgeries were cleaned. Closed boxes, classed as dirty boxes, were used to transport dirty instruments from the surgeries into the ‘dirty zone’ of a decontamination room. Used instruments were rinsed and placed in the ultrasonic cleaner for a timed period and inspected under a magnifying glass. Instruments were then placed onto trays to be sterilised. We noted the instruments were then placed into different closed boxes, classed as clean boxes in a ‘clean zone’. These were then ready to be transported back in to the surgeries. There were robust measures in place to prevent cross contamination between clean and dirty equipment. This demonstrated that staff were aware of and following HTM 01-05 guidelines.

There was evidence equipment was maintained and serviced in-line with manufacturers' recommendations. The service had an up-to-date infection control procedure in place that was routinely followed by staff. We noted infection control audits took place regularly. The segregation and storage of dental and sharps waste was in line with current guidelines. We observed that sharps containers were well maintained and correctly labelled.

We spoke with staff who told us they wore protective equipment such as disposable gloves, aprons, masks and visors. We saw these were available throughout the practice and noted staff wearing appropriate equipment while completing tasks. One patient we spoke with commented, ”I go in with my family and will always see the dentist and nurses washing their hands before putting on gloves.”