Smile Perfection

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. Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. We discussed with staff storing these in a more organised manner so staff could access these in a timely way. On the day of assessment, there was no blood and bodily fluid spillage kit available. However, in the days following the assessment, the provider submitted evidence that this had been ordered. Fire safety equipment was serviced and well maintained. Improvements should be made to ensure fire exits are clear and well signposted.

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 systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. The practice had implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. This included sharps safety and sepsis awareness. However, we noted the practice had not conducted a lone working risk assessment to assess, monitor and manage risks associated with staff lone working. We discussed this with staff and were assured this would be addressed. The practice had risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health (COSHH). A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. However, we noted outstanding recommendations from the fire risk assessment had not been acted on. On the day of assessment, we observed combustible materials surrounding the compressor. When we highlighted this to staff, they acted immediately and sent evidence following the assessment that the compressor had been cleared of combustible materials.

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 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 ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. 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. On the day of assessment, we looked at 5 staff files and noted 1 member of staff had not completed their mandatory annual fire awareness training and safeguarding training. The practice acted immediately and submitted evidence following the assessment that these had been completed. The practice had a recruitment policy and procedure to help them employ suitable staff. These reflected the relevant legislation. However, we noted that Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and references were not always sought by the practice prior to employment. The provider has assured us that all future recruitment will be in line with legislation. Improvements should be made to ensure there is evidence that newly appointed staff had a structured induction.

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.

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 infection control equipment in use was maintained and serviced. However, we noted the autoclave, a machine used to decontaminate reusable instruments, had not undergone its annual pressure vessel inspection (PVI). Following the assessment, the provider submitted evidence this was booked for 2 December 2024. The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance. However, improvements were required to ensure the documented procedures are reflective of practice protocols. The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment. However, we noted outstanding recommendations from the Legionella risk assessment had not been acted on.

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