A J Smith1, J Bagg, D Hurrell, S McHugh. 1. Infection Research Group, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School, 378 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, Scotland G2 3JZ
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the methods used for sterilisation of re-usable instruments in general dental practice, including the installation, commissioning and testing of benchtop steam sterilisers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational study in which the policies and procedures for sterilising instruments were viewed directly by trained surveyors at practice premises. Information relating to the installation, commissioning and testing of benchtop steam sterilisers was also collected by interview and observation of records. Data were recorded onto a standardised data collection form prepared for automated reading. RESULTS: Data were available fom 179 surgeries surveyed. Dental practices reprocess a range of instruments from critical to non-critical. The most common type of benchtop steam steriliser is a type N, or bowl and instrument (B&I) steriliser (88%). The remainder were type B, or vacuum sterilisers, though one surgery had access to a hot air steriliser. Sterilisers were usually installed by manufactures or suppliers (69%). Only 51% of sterilisers were tested on installation and 26% were commissioned, of which 38% were tested to SHTM 2010 standard. In most cases it was difficult to determine from the documentation available whether daily, weekly, quarterly or annual testing was undertaken in accordance with recognised standards. Written instructions for the operation of the steriliser were unavailable in 61% of practices. Insurance cover for pressure vessels was available in 79% of the surgeries with a B&I steriliser. In many instances there was inadequate separation of clean and dirty areas for segregating processed from unprocessed instruments. Ninety-six percent of surgeries did not have a procedure for the identification and traceability of instruments used on patients. There was no documentation of staff training in the use of sterilisers in 90% of surgeries. CONCLUSION: There has been significant uptake of the use of steam sterilisation to reprocess used dental instruments. However, there are significant shortcomings at various stages of the process, including installation, commissioning and periodic testing of sterilisers. These potentially compromise safety and the time, money and effort currently put into sterilising dental instruments. Complicit in these deficiencies are the manufacturers and suppliers of equipment that is inadequately installed and tested. There is a need for enhanced education and training in the use of sterilisers and the management of the process at all levels, from supplier to user. Improved access to appropriate technical advice on decontamination would also be a major benefit for the profession.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the methods used for sterilisation of re-usable instruments in general dental practice, including the installation, commissioning and testing of benchtop steam sterilisers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational study in which the policies and procedures for sterilising instruments were viewed directly by trained surveyors at practice premises. Information relating to the installation, commissioning and testing of benchtop steam sterilisers was also collected by interview and observation of records. Data were recorded onto a standardised data collection form prepared for automated reading. RESULTS: Data were available fom 179 surgeries surveyed. Dental practices reprocess a range of instruments from critical to non-critical. The most common type of benchtop steam steriliser is a type N, or bowl and instrument (B&I) steriliser (88%). The remainder were type B, or vacuum sterilisers, though one surgery had access to a hot air steriliser. Sterilisers were usually installed by manufactures or suppliers (69%). Only 51% of sterilisers were tested on installation and 26% were commissioned, of which 38% were tested to SHTM 2010 standard. In most cases it was difficult to determine from the documentation available whether daily, weekly, quarterly or annual testing was undertaken in accordance with recognised standards. Written instructions for the operation of the steriliser were unavailable in 61% of practices. Insurance cover for pressure vessels was available in 79% of the surgeries with a B&I steriliser. In many instances there was inadequate separation of clean and dirty areas for segregating processed from unprocessed instruments. Ninety-six percent of surgeries did not have a procedure for the identification and traceability of instruments used on patients. There was no documentation of staff training in the use of sterilisers in 90% of surgeries. CONCLUSION: There has been significant uptake of the use of steam sterilisation to reprocess used dental instruments. However, there are significant shortcomings at various stages of the process, including installation, commissioning and periodic testing of sterilisers. These potentially compromise safety and the time, money and effort currently put into sterilising dental instruments. Complicit in these deficiencies are the manufacturers and suppliers of equipment that is inadequately installed and tested. There is a need for enhanced education and training in the use of sterilisers and the management of the process at all levels, from supplier to user. Improved access to appropriate technical advice on decontamination would also be a major benefit for the profession.
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