We received concerns about Antrim House regarding poor cleanliness and hygiene standards that placed people at risk of health acquired infections. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 28 May 2012. This meant that the provider was unaware of our intended inspection. We found that the provider was not meeting the essential standards we looked at.
The provider sent us an action plan that told us what action they had taken to improve standards. However, the action plan provided insufficient information to show how standards would be improved, so people receive a safe effective service.
We carried out an unannounced follow up inspection on 6 August 2012. During our inspection we used a number of different methods to help us understand the quality of the service provided to people.
On the day of our inspection the provider and practice manager were not present but we spoke with the provider by telephone. We spoke with two dentists, two dental nurses, the receptionist and a person who use the service. We looked at four dental records and the practice's policies and procedures. We looked at staff training records. We spoke with staff about the decontamination procedures of instruments used for dental treatment.
The practice is situated in a residential area. There were car parking facilities available at the front of the property. The property consisted of a reception/waiting area, four treatment rooms and toilets.
We found that dental records contained relevant information to show people were involved in their dental plan. One person who accessed the service said, 'I was made aware of my treatment options.'
Staff did not have access to a safeguarding policy and were unaware of their responsibility of safeguarding people from potential abuse.
We found that the decontamination process of instruments used for dental treatment was inadequate and placed people at risk of health acquired infections.
We observed that the practice was not disposing their clinical waste appropriately and this could compromise people's health and safety.
The practice had a stock of emergency medicines that were not appropriate for the treatment the service offered and staff were not trained to administer them.
There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether staff had received essential training to ensure they had the skills and competence to undertake their role.
Staff personnel records contained insufficient evidence to show if staff were suitable to work at the practice.