You are here

Archived: Richard Thompson 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: 25 April 2013
Date of Publication: 21 May 2013
Inspection Report published 21 May 2013 PDF | 84.87 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 25 April 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

One patient told us that the practice was “always clean”.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. All the clinical areas of the practice were clean, organised and in good order. Cleaning of the practice was carried out by staff. We saw that detailed cleaning check lists were in use for cleaning of the surgery, decontamination and general environmental cleaning.

We observed cleaning of the surgery between cases. The dental chair, equipment and surfaces were cleaned using an appropriate technique and waste was disposed of safely. The practice had a contractual arrangement in place for the safe disposal of clinical waste.

The surgery had a separate designated room for the decontamination of instruments and was set up to meet Department of Health quality requirements. The room was clean and well maintained.

The decontamination room had three sinks; one for hand washing, one for washing instruments and one for rinsing in line with national quality requirements. All necessary personal protective equipment such as aprons, masks, safety goggles and heavy duty gloves were available.

We asked the practice manager, who was the infection prevention lead, to describe the decontamination process. Used instruments which were not decontaminated immediately were kept moist in sealed containers to aid the decontamination process. We were told that brushes used to manually clean instruments were replaced regularly. Used instruments were cleaned manually and then with the use of an ultrasonic cleaner. The cleanliness of instruments was checked through the use of an illuminated magnifier. Instruments were sterilised in a non vacuum autoclave. Packed instruments were labelled appropriately with the use by date. We were told that single use items were not reused.

We saw records that demonstrated the necessary checks had been carried out on all the decontamination equipment.

A self assessment infection prevention audit had been completed in October 2012 and a 97% score had been achieved. Audit records showed improvements that had been made. For example we were told that damaged drawer surfaces had been replaced.

Sharps disposal bins were available for use. Colour coded bags were used for waste disposal. We observed colour coded mops, buckets and dust pans and brushes to support safe hygiene practice. Arrangements were in place for the safe disposal of amalgam.

Guidance was on display for staff to follow in the event of an inoculation injury. Audit records showed that clinical staff were immunised against Hepatitis B.