OBJECTIVE: This study examined the policies, procedures, environment and equipment used for the cleaning of dental instruments in general dental practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 179 surgeries were surveyed. This was an observational based study in which the cleaning processes were viewed directly by a trained surveyor. Information relating to surgery policies and equipment was also collected by interview and viewing of records. Data were recorded onto a standardised data collection form prepared for automated reading. RESULTS: The BDA advice sheet A12 was available in 79% of surgeries visited. The most common method for cleaning dental instruments was manual washing, with or without the use of an ultrasonic bath. Automated washer disinfectors were not used by any surgery visited. The manual wash process was poorly controlled, with 41% of practices using no cleaning agent other than water. Only 2% of surgeries used a detergent formulated for manual washing of instruments. When using ultrasonic baths, the interval that elapsed between changes of the ultrasonic bath cleaning solution ranged from two to 504 hours (median nine hours). Fifty-eight percent of surgeries claimed to have a dedicated area for instrument cleaning, of which 80% were within the patient treatment area. However, in 69% of surgeries the clean and dirty areas were not clearly defined. Virtually all cleaning of dental instruments was undertaken by dental nurses. Training for this was provided mainly by demonstration and observed practice of a colleague. There was little documentation associated with training. Whilst most staff wore gloves when undertaking manual cleaning, 51% of staff did not use eye protection, 57% did not use a mask and 7% used waterproof overalls. CONCLUSIONS: In many dental practices, the cleaning of re-usable dental instruments is undertaken using poorly controlled processes and procedures, which increase the risk of cross infection. Clear and unambiguous advice must be provided to the dental team, especially dental nurses, on appropriate equipment, chemicals and environment for cleaning dental instruments. This should be facilitated by appropriate training programmes and the implementation of quality assurance procedures at each stage of the cleaning process.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the policies, procedures, environment and equipment used for the cleaning of dental instruments in general dental practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 179 surgeries were surveyed. This was an observational based study in which the cleaning processes were viewed directly by a trained surveyor. Information relating to surgery policies and equipment was also collected by interview and viewing of records. Data were recorded onto a standardised data collection form prepared for automated reading. RESULTS: The BDA advice sheet A12 was available in 79% of surgeries visited. The most common method for cleaning dental instruments was manual washing, with or without the use of an ultrasonic bath. Automated washer disinfectors were not used by any surgery visited. The manual wash process was poorly controlled, with 41% of practices using no cleaning agent other than water. Only 2% of surgeries used a detergent formulated for manual washing of instruments. When using ultrasonic baths, the interval that elapsed between changes of the ultrasonic bath cleaning solution ranged from two to 504 hours (median nine hours). Fifty-eight percent of surgeries claimed to have a dedicated area for instrument cleaning, of which 80% were within the patient treatment area. However, in 69% of surgeries the clean and dirty areas were not clearly defined. Virtually all cleaning of dental instruments was undertaken by dental nurses. Training for this was provided mainly by demonstration and observed practice of a colleague. There was little documentation associated with training. Whilst most staff wore gloves when undertaking manual cleaning, 51% of staff did not use eye protection, 57% did not use a mask and 7% used waterproof overalls. CONCLUSIONS: In many dental practices, the cleaning of re-usable dental instruments is undertaken using poorly controlled processes and procedures, which increase the risk of cross infection. Clear and unambiguous advice must be provided to the dental team, especially dental nurses, on appropriate equipment, chemicals and environment for cleaning dental instruments. This should be facilitated by appropriate training programmes and the implementation of quality assurance procedures at each stage of the cleaning process.
Authors: Denis Bourgeois; Claude Dussart; Ina Saliasi; Laurent Laforest; Paul Tramini; Florence Carrouel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 3.390