Sarum Dental Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We found this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Learning culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

The judgement for Safe systems, pathways and transitions is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

The judgement for Safeguarding is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

The judgement for Involving people to manage risks is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Three yearly performance checks were carried out for the x-ray machines, but staff were unable to locate evidence of annual electro-mechanical servicing. We were told that servicing would be carried out as soon as practicably possible. Improvements were needed to the management of fire safety. In particular, the emergency lighting and fire alarm system was not tested at appropriate intervals, emergency lighting was not serviced, and fire drills were not performed. The practice had a fire safety risk assessment carried out on 24 December 2024 which highlighted these shortfalls. We saw evidence to confirm that actions recommended in the fire risk assessment were being implemented. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

The practice had a recruitment policy to help them employ suitable staff. Improvements could be made to the practice's recruitment procedures to ensure accurate, complete and detailed records are maintained for all staff. In particular obtaining an employment history, evidence of conduct in previous employment and carrying out a health assessment for 2 visiting clinicians. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. The provider ensured clinical staff completed continuing professional development required for their registration with the General Dental Council. Evidence of the level of immunity to Hepatitis B was not known for 2 clinical staff. Improvement could be made to ensure that all clinical staff have adequate immunity for vaccine preventable infectious diseases and risk assessments carried out for any staff going through the vaccination process. The practice had arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. There were also effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient staffing levels. They demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults at risk and children. Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice. Staff discussed their training needs during annual appraisals and ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance. This included procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment. The practice had a legionella risk assessment carried out on 24 December 2024. We saw evidence to confirm that the actions resulting from the risk assessment were being addressed. The practice had cleaning procedures in place to ensure effective cleaning. Improvements could be made to ensure that cleaning standard checks were recorded appropriately. Improvements could be made to ensure that cleaning equipment was stored separately to reduce the risk of cross contamination. Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions. We saw, and staff confirmed, that single use items were not reprocessed. We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. Staff followed infection control principles, including the use of personal protective equipment, and safely segregated and disposed of hazardous waste. The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance. Improvements were needed to ensure that the floor and radiator surfaces in the practice toilet were complete and impervious.

The judgement for Medicines optimisation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.