Dental Care Centre

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.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. 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.

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 majority of emergency equipment and medicines were available, and staff could access these in a timely way. However, medical emergency equipment was not checked weekly in accordance with national guidance. We saw child sized oxygen masks were missing, and the mercury spillage kit expired in 2006. Since the assessment, the practice has confirmed that both have been ordered and has assured us weekly checks will be implemented moving forward.

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. 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 and sepsis awareness. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. The practice ensured equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. Most of the facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations. However, the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) dated 1 April 2021 was marked unsatisfactory and had multiple outstanding actions classed as “dangerous” and “potentially dangerous”. Staff were unsure whether these had been completed and since the assessment the practice have confirmed that a new EICR has been booked in for January 2025.

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 and 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. 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. However, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and professional references were not always sought at the point of recruitment. We raised this with staff who confirmed this will be implemented going forwards and DBS checks are underway for members of staff that did not have recent ones at the point of recruitment. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. However, we did not see evidence of indemnity for one member of staff on the day of our assessment. The provider submitted evidence shortly after our assessment that confirms indemnity is in place for this member of staff. Newly appointed staff had a structured induction, and clinical staff completed continuing professional development required for their registration with the General Dental Council. We saw the practice had effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. The practice had arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. However, up-to-date fire safety training was unavailable for 3 members of staff and safeguarding training was unavailable for 2 members of staff. We have received evidence that these were completed in the days after our assessment.

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 policies and procedures in place to ensure clinical waste was segregated and stored appropriately in line with guidance. The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment. However, not all recommended actions from the external Legionella risk assessment had been completed. We raised this with staff and were assured they would be addressed.

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