Smile Dental Care Eastbourne Also known as Smile Dental Care Group - Eastbourne

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 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 had systems to identify and manage risks but these did not always work effectively.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines. However, checks of these were ineffective as they had not identified that paediatric pads for the Automated External Defibrillator (AED) had expired and that there was a lack of suitable syringes and needles to administer some emergency medication. The practice should also take action to ensure the availability of medicines in the practice to manage medical emergencies taking into account the guidelines issued by the British National Formulary and the General Dental Council.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and most staff had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. We were told that staff participated in medical emergency scenario training during monthly practice meetings.

The premises were visibly clean, maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. However, information on these substances for staff in the event of an emergency was not easily accessible. We saw that information on all products was not available.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and most of the required radiation protection information was available. Following the inspection, we were sent evidence to demonstrate registration with the Health and Safety Executive in respect to radiation, however, we were not assured this was the appropriate registration.

The practice managed fire safety well, and fire exits were clear and well signposted.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use.
 

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff. We saw that the practice did not always follow its policy and not all information as specified in schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act (2008) was available. Improvements were required to the oversight of recruitment to prevent lapses in processes; some documents we were told were not available or had not been requested. There was no documentation for the recruitment of 1 staff member. We did not see satisfactory evidence of conduct in previous employment for 2 staff. The process of obtaining Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS) checks was not completed in line with the policy. Leaders lacked awareness of actions to take in the event of staff non-response to the hepatitis B vaccination and no risk assessments were available for such staff.

The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. However, the practice should ensure plans are in place for all staff to be registered with the relevant professional body, the General Dental Council (GDC) where applicable.

Newly appointed staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were enough staff on duty. They demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Staff knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns within the practice and externally, although systems could be strengthened to ensure these were suitably documented for ease of tracking concerns.
The practice had not always ensured that staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. A lack of oversight of systems and processes had led to some gaps in training. We saw that a significant amount of training was completed in the days preceding the inspection and staff told us that some training was overdue.
 

The practice had infection control procedures, although these did not wholly reflect published guidance.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of most equipment. We requested documentation to support that one of the autoclaves and the ultrasonic bath were serviced and validated in line with manufacturer’s instructions, but we did not receive this.

The practice had completed risk assessments to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with current guidance.
Most staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

Staff used personal protective equipment and decontaminated dental instruments after use, in line with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single-use items were not reprocessed.

The practice 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.