• Dentist
  • Dentist

Saving Faces Limited

Switch House, Northern Perimeter Road, Netherton, Merseyside, L30 7PT (0151) 520 2766

Provided and run by:
Saving Faces Limited

Report from 13 June 2024 assessment

On this page

Safe

Regulations met

Updated 22 October 2024

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.

Learning culture

Regulations met

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

Safe systems, pathways and transitions

Regulations met

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

Safeguarding

Regulations met

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

Involving people to manage risks

Regulations met

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

Safe environments

Regulations met

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. Immediate life support training was also completed by staff providing treatment to patients under sedation. Staff were encouraged to participate in medical emergency scenario training. Staff we spoke with told us that equipment and instruments were well maintained and readily available. The provider described the processes they had in place to identify and manage risks. Staff felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and the reporting of risks was encouraged.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. The premises were clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. Fire exits were clear and well signposted, and fire safety equipment was serviced and well maintained.

The practice ensured equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. The practice ensured the facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations. A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. The management of fire safety was effective. The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and laser. However, we noted it was not clear if the hand-held X-ray machine had been subject to a routine test within the last year. We discussed this with staff and were later sent evidence this had been booked in to be completed. The practice had risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health. The practice had implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. This included sharps safety, sepsis awareness and lone working. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. However, we noted the labels used on dispensed antibiotics did not have the practice’s name and address on them. We discussed this with staff and were assured it would be addressed and rectified.

Safe and effective staffing

Regulations met

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient staffing levels. Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued. They were proud to work in the practice. Staff discussed their training needs during annual appraisals, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development. Staff we spoke with demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children. However, not all clinical staff had completed level 2 safeguarding training. We discussed this with staff and were assured it would be addressed and rectified. Staff told us they had received a structured induction programme, which included safeguarding.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedure to help them employ suitable staff, including for agency or locum staff. These reflected the relevant legislation. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. Newly appointed staff had a structured induction, and clinical staff completed continuing professional development required for their registration with the General Dental Council. The practice had arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. However, we noted that clinicians who were reporting on CBCT scans did not have evidence of the appropriate level of training. We discussed this with staff and were assured it would be addressed and rectified. We saw the practice had effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.

Infection prevention and control

Regulations met

The practice appeared clean and there was an effective schedule in place to ensure it was kept clean. Staff followed infection control principles, including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Hazardous waste was segregated and disposed of safely. We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance.

The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance and the equipment in use was maintained and serviced. Staff demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes and we saw single use items were not reprocessed. Staff had appropriate training, and the practice completed infection prevention and control (IPC) audits in line with current guidance. The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment. The practice had policies and procedures in place to ensure clinical waste was segregated and stored appropriately in line with guidance.

Medicines optimisation

Regulations met

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