Dental Scan Ltd

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 service was providing safe care in line 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.

The practice identified and managed risks effectively and staff described the processes. Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. They felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and this was reflected in our findings.

On the day of inspection, we asked staff how they would respond to a patient suffering a medical emergency as they did not hold any emergency medicines or equipment. We were advised an ambulance would be called. We discussed alternative arrangements for prior to the ambulance arriving or less serious medical emergencies such as a faint. Following the inspection, we were told an informal arrangement had been made with the service in the adjacent room which held a full resuscitation kit.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available.

Improvements should be made to the system for managing the risks associated with fire. A fire risk assessment had been completed for the specific suite and also the whole building. However, the overarching building risk assessment had not identified how patients who could not manage stairs would be evacuated in the event of a fire. In addition, on the day of assessment there was no fire extinguisher within the suite. We were later advised that an extinguisher had been located and was now in place in the suite.

The practice had a recruitment policy that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff.

The service ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with their appropriate regulator and had appropriate professional indemnity cover if required. However, we noted that a valid Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check was not always obtained at the point of employment and there was no risk assessment in place to mitigate the risks associated with this. We discussed this with staff and were assured it would be addressed and rectified.

Newly appointed staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Staff knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns within the service and externally.

Improvements could be made to the system for ensuring staff are up-to-date with the relevant training. On the day of inspection, we noted not all staff were up-to-date with the required training. We discussed this with the registered manager and were assured the process would be reviewed appropriately.

There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, during clinical supervision and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the service.

The service had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance.

Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

Staff used personal protective equipment and confirmed that single-use items were not reused.

A Legionella risk assessment had been carried out on the whole premises. This risk assessment had numerous actions, and it was not clear if these had been addressed. We discussed the importance of ensuring a good working relationship with the facilities team to ensure any actions identified in risk assessment have been completed.

The service had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste.

The service completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance.

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