from NSK UK. Ltd.
see "products review" pages
John Milne, the Senior National Dental Adviser at the CQC. Offers advice & clears up some common myths about inspections of dental services and shares agreed guidance. This initiative is a novel way to try and address some of the confusion out there, some are of course genuine concerns and some just 'Chinese Whispers' that seem to set themselves in stone as they have been 'whispered' for so long!
Follow the link to CQC 'mythbusters'
So out of the blue you get a 'genuine' request for a quotation for say...10 sterilizers. Good you think, business has been a bit slow? It's from a named purchasing manager at a hospital or university. You check on line and sure enough, the person and email exists. You email back to check out some more details and alarm bells should start to ring......Look closely at the phone &email address that ends in ....gmail. That's not right is it? he wants delivery to a different address. He also promises terms of payment 30 days net. You should know what happens or doesn't happen next? If the scammer gets past the 1st hurdle with luck your courier will smell a rat and ring you to ask if this back street dive is really where he should leave circa £50,000 worth of equipment. If you have your own experiences of this worrying dodgy practice don't keep it to yourself, let your trade body & the police know.............it's fraud!!
A Startling Result, for perhaps only the expert working group that had issued their brief but contraversial statement from Glasgow In 2013 stating they could find no evidence to support the use or purchase of a vacuum sterilizer when processing hollow instruments, including of course, dental handpieces. This advice appeared at the time to rebuff the established principals of complete air-removal being absolutely necessary in the assurance of sterility. The note issued from the working group had also stunned sterilizer manufactures whom for some time had been moving investment & production away from traditional displacement machines towards the B- cycle vacuum machines, as is the norm in the rest of Europe. It did of course also throw sterilizer training establishments, training experts and advisors into total confusion, to say the least!
The time, effort and ultimately the result, 'proving' that the N cycle was ineffective, was however somewhat 'expected' for the audience at the CSC Annual Scientific Meeting, recently held at Leicester. The team involved in this painstaking work, the methodology and findings were presented by Andrew Smith, well respected Consultant Medical Microbiologist at the Glasgow Dental School. It was obvious from the reaction from the audience that it was "preaching to the converted" given the lack of surprise shown by the results. However there seemed to be more surprise, that this research had to be carried out in the first place!
More news will come on this now that the paper has been published and the implication of these findings will now hopefully clear up the general confusion for the decontamination educators the dental team and purchasing decision makers as well as manufactures and suppliers!
Are we being over regulated? Are we just overloaded with too much information and advice? Have you seen any ridiculous, obvious or even pointless signs? Let us all enjoy your findings with a few few words or a simple photo you have seen.
CSC Autumn Study Day proves once again to be a great success! Held on Monday 11th September, at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Post Graduate Centre, topics presented and discussed were focussed on the HTM01-01 guidance documents for decontamination of surgical instruments. Although the topical debate is around endoscopes the implications for dentistry is also very relevant owing to the shear numbers and complexities of dental instruments being processed. Some excellent presentations discussed how we were 'coping' with the new limits set in the HTM guidance of 5μg per instrument. This unit of measurement was in itself controversial as it appeared to one presenter to have been a figure backed with little supported evidence and it 'favoured' larger instruments as it was only per instrument, regardless of size. Bob Kingston AeD, the final presenter questioned from a practical 'real world' point of view, if we were perhaps looking in the wrong place by detailing too much around how we measure protein, how we go about detecting and testing for it, when he sees, in his every-day advice visits that more attention should be given to staff training around loading of instruments into washer-disinfectors. Bob also suggested a degree of pre-cleaning/washing as soon as instruments are used (even in theatres) could solve a lot of issues further down the decontamination line! A lively debate ensued!
Don't forget the Fake Dental Equipment issue hasn't gone away! So please check once again that what you are using or have been given to use is from a genuine manufacture and supplied from a reputable source, preferably from a BDIA member company. Fake, is not just restricted to instruments but also to consumable items that look like the genuine thing, but are at best areless effective and at worse, downright dangerous!