175 Fore Street Edmonton London

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.

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 20 September 2024.

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.

At the inspection on 30 January 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulations:

Staff and leaders told us of the systems in place to manage risks for patients, staff, equipment and the premises.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency. They completed annual training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support to ensure they remained up to date.

The registered manager demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the requirement in relation to the maintenance and servicing of premises and equipment. Improved processes had been implemented to ensure facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations. The practice manager had confirmed with the electrician that the electrical installation report completed following refurbishment works and dated 2021 was valid for 5-years. They had scheduled an Electrical Installations Condition Report (EICR) to be completed in February 2026.

The dentist, who was the clinical lead, told us that medication will be prescribed to patients in line with current guidance. The dentist further told us that a prescribing log would be maintained, and systems would be in place to review and audit antimicrobial prescribing.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available in accordance with national guidance. The practice had implemented effective weekly checks to ensure that any missing or out-of-date items were promptly identified and replaced.

The practice had made improvements to the systems in place for managing fire safety across the premises. A comprehensive fire safety risk assessment was completed on 1 December 2025 by a competent person, and all recommendations had been actioned. The practice carried out regular in-house checks of the fire safety equipment and maintained accurate records. There were arrangements in place for the routine servicing of fire safety equipment. Additionally, staff completed fire awareness training, and fire evacuation drills were conducted bi-annually.

A current gas safety certificate was available for review. Systems were also in place to ensure that portable electrical appliances were tested and maintained to confirm they were safe to use.

The practice had strengthened its systems to support the safe use of radiography equipment. The practice had appointed a radiation protection advisor who was also their medical physics expert. The radiation protection folder contained a risk assessment and employer’s procedures dated 24 November 2024, with arrangements in place to review both documents every 3-years. Local rules identifying and describing the controlled areas had been drafted, and a critical examination and acceptance test had been carried out on 24 September 2024.

We do not assess compliance with the Ionising Radiation Regulations 2017 and the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017 but we do request services to provide evidence that demonstrates their compliance to inform our findings.

The practice had undertaken risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health. Staff had access to the safety data sheets of hazardous materials used within the service.

A sharps risk assessment had been completed on 16 December 2025, and the use of a safer sharps system had been implemented in line with Health and Safety (Sharps instruments in healthcare) Regulation 2013. Improvements should be made to ensure the sharps risk assessment identified all types of sharps used within the service and the practice specific control measures in place to reduce the risk of sharps injuries.

The practice had made improvements to ensure that medical device alerts, recalls and rapid response reports issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency were reviewed promptly and, where applicable, disseminated to the team.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles effectively. The staff member who demonstrated the decontamination process had completed infection prevention and control training and they had the sufficient qualifications, competence, skills and experience to carry out duties relating to the decontamination of dental instruments safely.

The practice had systems in place to discuss individual training and development needs during annual appraisals.

The registered manager, who was also the safeguarding lead, demonstrated sufficient understanding of their responsibilities in protecting vulnerable adults and children from abuse, including the relevant internal procedures and external processes for escalation.

The practice recruitment process reflected the relevant legislation. Required documentation was available for all members of the dental team, including proof of identity with a recent photograph, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificates, satisfactory evidence of conduct in previous employment, evidence of qualifications, a full employment history, and vaccination records.

Newly appointed staff received a structured induction to ensure they were familiar with procedures and protocols within the practice and understood their roles and responsibilities, including the actions required in the event of a medical emergency or a safeguarding concern.

Dental staff and the registered manager had completed core training relevant to their roles. This included, but was not limited to, safeguarding vulnerable adults and children, medical emergencies, infection prevention and control, fire safety, radiography, and supporting patients with a learning disability or autism. There were systems in place to monitor staff training to ensure appropriate action can be taken quickly when training requirements are not met.

The provider stated that staffing levels would be closely monitored going forward, and additional staff would be employed if necessary to ensure the practice had a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff to provide safe and effective dental services.

We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments, which was carried out in accordance with national guidance.

The practice now had dedicated handwash sinks in the surgery and the decontamination room. Staff performed handwashing before performing the decontamination process, and soap was available at all handwash stations. Staff wore the appropriate personal protective equipment, including visor, heavy duty gloves and mask for the decontamination process.

A detergent specifically designed for the decontamination of dirty instruments was used, and instruments were fully immersed and scrubbed under running water. A thermometer was used to ensure water used for manual cleaning was under 45C. Staff used an illuminated magnifier to inspect instruments. There were systems in place to monitor the use of long-handled brushes and heavy-duty gloves.

Staff wrapped instruments before sterilisation in a vacuum autoclave, in accordance with current guidance. Systems to monitor the storage time of sterilised instruments were effective. There were records to show that weekly and daily testing on the autoclave were being completed in line with manufacturer's instructions.

There were systems in place to ensure that single-use items were disposed of after use.

The infection prevention and decontamination policy was tailored to the service, and there was a written manual cleaning process staff could refer to.

Staff demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the management of Dental Unit Water Lines (DUWLs). DUWLs were flushed and disinfected in line with current guidance.

Overall, we were assured that the practice had implemented effective and service specific infection control arrangements to control and reduce the risk of infection.

A legionella risk assessment had been carried out on 6 January 2026 to identify the risk associated with bacteria developing in the water lines, and a written waterline management scheme was available for review.

The practice had systems in place to ensure that clinical waste, containing material contaminated with bodily fluids and contaminated sharps, was collected by a designated clinical waste company. A current clinical waste contract and waste collection consignment notes were made available for review. In addition, clinical waste awaiting collection was stored securely.

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