Site Visits Reveal Common Gaps in Instrument Reprocessing and Sterilization at Philadelphia Dental Clinics

Abstract

Background: Most dental clinics lack resources and oversight related to infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. Few dental clinics undergo inspections by regulatory authorities unless the state licensing authorities receive a specific complaint. Many states, including Pennsylvania, do not have continuing IPC education requirements for dental providers. In 2018–2019, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) received and responded to multiple complaints and concerns related to IPC practices at dental clinics. Complaints were investigated in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Department of State (PADOS). Methods: Unannounced site visits were conducted at 7 Philadelphia dental clinics from December 2018 through September 2019 as part of the public health responses. Clinic evaluations and observations by PDPH certified infection preventionists focused on (1) IPC policies and procedures, (2) staff IPC training, (3) hand hygiene, (4) personal protective equipment, (5) instrument reprocessing and sterilization, (6) injection safety, and (7) environmental cleaning and disinfection. The CDC and the Organization of Safety, Antisepsis and Prevention (OSAP) checklists were adapted for this purpose. Results: Most dental practices we visited were small, unaffiliated, owner-operated clinics. The most common gaps we identified were associated with instrument reprocessing and sterilization practices, including inadequate separation between clean and dirty work areas, limited space and availability of sinks, inappropriate use of glutaraldehyde products for instrument cleaning (n = 3, 43%), extended reuse of cleaning brushes (n = 5, 71%), sterilization or storage of sterilized instruments without appropriate packaging (n = 2, 29%), lack of spore testing or reviewing results (n = 2, 29%), and lack of documentation of sterilizer run cycles and maintenance (n = 7, 100%). Additionally, most clinics did not have well-developed IPC policies and procedures, and staff IPC trainings were neither documented nor conducted annually. Alcohol-based hand sanitizer was often not available at the point of use. Conclusions: In Philadelphia, dental clinics often lacked IPC support and oversight. Lapses across multiple key IPC domains were common. These findings suggest that public health may have a role in providing IPC support to unaffiliated dental clinics. Licensing entities can also serve a role in improving IPC practices by more widely mandating continuing IPC education as part of the dental license renewal process.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None