Bayston Hill 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 managed at the practice, and the reporting of risks was encouraged.

Most emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. We found some items to be missing however, these were ordered immediately following our assessment. 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 safety equipment was serviced and well maintained. We found a fire safety risk assessment had not been carried out by a competent person.

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 had not been carried out in line with the legal requirements. Following our assessment, arrangements were made for this to be carried out. 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. Safety data sheets were available for all materials including cleaning products. The practice had implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety and sepsis awareness. The sharps safety policy was updated following our assessment to include information on the use of safer sharps and single use matrix bands. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out however, these were not clinician specific as recommended.

At the time of our assessment, the patients felt there were enough staff working at the practice. They were able to book appointments when needed.

Staff discussed their training needs during clinical supervision, 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.

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 an induction which we found required improvements as not all of the information had been completed. 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 within their capabilities.

Patients told us that the practice looked clean, and equipment appeared to be in a good state of repair.

Staff told us how they ensured the premises and equipment were clean and maintained. However, we found the cleaning schedules for clinical areas required strengthening and there was no cleaning schedule for environmental cleaning. Following our assessment evidence was provided of an updated clinical area cleaning schedule and an environmental cleaning schedule. Staff demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. Staff told us that single use items were not reprocessed.

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 had appropriate training, and the practice completed infection prevention and control (IPC) audits however, these was carried out annually rather than the recommended 6 monthly 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.