Synergy Dental Clinic Leyland

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.

Whilst 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.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

Staff providing treatment to patients under sedation had also completed immediate life support training (or basic life support training plus patient inspection, airway management techniques and automated external defibrillator training).

Staff were encouraged to participate in medical emergency scenario training.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

The practice had processes to identify and manage risks. However, improvements were needed to ensure these were effective.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. We found that improvements were needed to make sure all hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Although safety information was available to staff, it needed to be updated to include first aid guidance and proper storage instructions.

Improvements were needed to ensure fire safety was managed effectively. While fire exits were clear and well signposted, recommendations made during the servicing of fire detection equipment had not been addressed in a timely manner.

Staff told us NHS prescription pads were kept secure, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use. However, this was not effective. From the records we were shown the practice could not account for all prescriptions issued.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable 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 we spoke to demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding and knew how to access relevant information. They were also aware of their responsibilities in protecting vulnerable adults and children.

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, practice team meetings and ongoing informal conversations.

Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued, and they enjoyed working in the practice.

Systems for overseeing staff training were not working effectively. Records showed that some individuals had completed training shortly before the inspection, with no evidence that training had been maintained at the required intervals beforehand. Some staff who recently completed training in areas such as sepsis awareness demonstrated limited understanding of the signs and symptoms. Gaps in oversight meant up-to-date training records were not available for all clinical staff in relation to radiation protection, disability and autism, and safeguarding children.

In addition, records were not available for the provider to confirm that staff had completed training in dental implants or remained up to date with ongoing dental sedation requirements.

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.

We observed use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed.

The practice had effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment.

The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions.

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

The practice had protocols in place for effective cleaning and the safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. While the clinical waste bin was locked, improvements were needed to ensure it was securely fixed in place.

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