Parish 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.

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 practice held medical emergency medicines and equipment. Improvements were required to the system for checking these. We noted the pads for the defibrillator had passed their expiry date. Replacement pads were ordered on the day of inspection.

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.

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.

A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. We saw evidence of regular checks of the fire detection equipment. However, we noted the risk assessment, which had been competed in August 2023, had recommendations to provide fire resistant boarding and install fire detection equipment in the cellar. These had not been completed.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment. However, the required radiation protection information had not been made practice specific such as the local rules and employer procedures. In addition, we asked to see evidence of the current registration with the Health and Safety Executive. Staff were unable to locate this.

On the day of inspection we asked to see the Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) folder which would contain risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health. Staff were unable to locate this folder. In addition, we noted a bottle of cleaning substance in one of the surgeries which was not stored securely.

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.

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.

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.

The practice did not have effective systems to ensure all staff training was up-to-date. We noted some new members of staff did not have any evidence of up-to-date training.

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.

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