Dental Care Centre Elland

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. Immediate life support training (or basic life support training plus patient assessment, airway management techniques and automated external defibrillator training) was also completed by staff providing treatment to patients under sedation. The refresher training for 1 staff member was due in November 2024 and we were told this was scheduled for January 2025, the practice confirmed, no patients were due to be treated under conscious sedation until this training was up-to-date. Staff were encouraged to participate in medical emergency scenario training.

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. The fire exits were well signposted, and fire safety equipment was serviced and well maintained. The practice should take action to ensure the availability of equipment in the practice to manage medical emergencies taking into account the guidelines issued by the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the General Dental Council. We noted medicines were not available as described in recognised guidance, but we received confirmation these had been ordered on the day of the inspection. The provider had systems in place to monitor and record the storage temperature of medicines and dental care products requiring refrigeration, to ensure their efficacy. Improvements should be made to ensure where temperatures are outside the recommended range, prompt action is taken to address the risk.

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. 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, sepsis awareness and lone working. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. The practice should take action to implement the recommendations in the practice's fire safety risk assessment and ensure ongoing fire safety management is effective. A fire safety risk assessment was carried out on 25 June 2024 in line with the legal requirements. Recommendations were made in the assessment report; however, there was no evidence these had all been addressed and no interim arrangements were in place to manage the risk. The leadership team confirmed they would review any outstanding actions. We also noted some concerns relating to the rear fire exit and suggested the practice review and consider the risks in this area, in particular they should ensure the fire exit provides an unimpeded exit route.

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that on the whole there were sufficient staffing levels although this was impacted if staff were asked to support sister sites. Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued. They were proud to work in the practice. Staff discussed their training needs during annual appraisals, during clinical discussions, 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. 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. We saw the practice had effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.

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 should take action to implement any recommendations in the practice's Legionella risk assessment, taking into account the guidelines issued by the Department of Health in the Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices, and having regard to The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice about the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.’ A Legionella risk assessment was carried out on 25 June 2024 and a number of recommendations were made, there was no evidence all of the recommendations had been acted on. The practice also carried out water temperature monitoring as part of the management of Legionella. Where temperatures were outside the recommended parameters, there was no evidence action had been taken to address this.

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