Bagg J, Smith A J, Hurrell D, McHugh S, Irvine G
Infection Research Group, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School, Glasgow, UK.
Br Dent J. 2007 May 12;202(9):E22; discussion 550-1. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2007.124. Epub 2007 Feb 9.
This study examined the policies, procedures, environment and equipment used for the cleaning of dental instruments in general dental practice.
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.
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.
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.
本研究调查了普通牙科诊所中用于清洁牙科器械的政策、程序、环境和设备。
共对179家诊所进行了调查。这是一项基于观察的研究,由一名经过培训的调查员直接观察清洁过程。还通过访谈和查看记录收集了与诊所政策和设备相关的信息。数据记录在为自动读取而准备的标准化数据收集表上。
在所走访的79%的诊所中可获取英国牙科协会(BDA)的A12号建议表。清洁牙科器械最常用的方法是手工清洗,无论是否使用超声波清洗槽。在所走访的任何诊所中均未使用自动清洗消毒器。手工清洗过程控制不佳,41%的诊所除水之外未使用任何清洁剂。仅有2%的诊所使用专门配制用于手工清洗器械的洗涤剂。使用超声波清洗槽时,更换超声波清洗槽清洗液的间隔时间从2小时至504小时不等(中位数为9小时)。58%的诊所声称有专门的器械清洁区域,其中80%位于患者治疗区内。然而,在69%的诊所中,清洁区和污染区没有明确界定。几乎所有牙科器械的清洁工作均由牙科护士承担。对此的培训主要通过同事的示范和实际操作进行。与培训相关的文档很少。虽然大多数工作人员在进行手工清洁时戴手套,但51%的工作人员未使用眼部防护装备,57%未使用口罩,7%使用了防水工作服。
在许多牙科诊所中,可重复使用牙科器械的清洁过程和程序控制不佳,这增加了交叉感染的风险。必须向牙科团队,尤其是牙科护士,提供关于清洁牙科器械的适当设备、化学品和环境的清晰明确的建议。这应通过适当的培训计划以及在清洁过程的每个阶段实施质量保证程序来实现。