The Dentalist Loughborough

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.

Although there are issues to be addressed, the impact of our concerns relates to the governance and the oversight of the risks, rather than a patient safety risk.

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 processes to identify and manage risks. However, we found these were not always applied consistently or effectively.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. They knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. At the time of our inspection, most staff providing treatment to patients under sedation had completed immediate or advanced life support training. We were provided assurance following the inspection that all staff providing treatment to patients under sedation had completed the required life support training.

Staff also participated in medical emergency scenario training.

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

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation for most equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of most of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. However, the Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) was overdue for the 3 yearly performance check. We were also unable to find evidence of quality assurance tests in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. Following this inspection, we were sent evidence to demonstrate that the 3 yearly performance check had been scheduled and actions taken to strengthen the radiography quality assurance system. 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 managed fire safety well, and fire exits were clear and well signposted.

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

The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover.

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 at all times. 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.

The practice did not always ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. We found some staff were not up to date with their Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R) training within their 5-year General Dental Council (GDC) cycle. We were provided assurance following the inspection all staff were up to date with their IR(ME)R training.

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 appraisals, clinical supervision, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

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

The practice 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 decontaminated dental instruments after use, in line with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single-use items were not reprocessed.

The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems. The practice was in the process of addressing recommendations documented in a recent external Legionella risk assessment.

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

Equipment was maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions.

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.