Links Associates Salford 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 practice was providing safe care in accordance 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 processes to identify and manage risks and staff we spoke with were able to describe these to us. Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. Staff felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and this was reflected in our findings.

The practice had suitable procedures for the management of sharps and staff knew what to do in the case of a sharp’s injury. However, information displayed within sharps injury posters contained out-of-date information. The provider took immediate action during the inspection day. They created a new poster and placed these in necessary areas.

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 were encouraged to participate 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 of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines.

The provider should ensure oversight processes for the management of fire safety are improved. We saw the management of fire safety was not always effective. A fire risk assessment had been carried out by a member of staff who was not able to demonstrate competency to do so. The provider had not assessed the need for smoke alarms and did not have any smoke alarms at the time of our inspection. Emergency lighting was present but had not been tested on a monthly basis nor serviced annually. A fire drill had been carried out in October 2023, but this was not in line with guidance. However, fire exits were clear and well signposted. The practice took immediate action and purchased some smoke alarms. They carried out a fire drill in line with guidance, serviced the emergency lighting, and installed the newly delivered smoke alarms the day after the inspection. A new fire risk assessment was booked with an external company for 16 April 2025.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or 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 we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient levels of 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 had arrangements to ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general well-being and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, 1-to-1 meetings, during clinical supervision, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff stated they 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. 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. However, on the day of inspection we saw a new boiler was installed in 2018, but the only Legionella risk assessment available pre-dated the installation (2015). An updated risk assessment had not been carried out since installation. The provider acted immediately, and a Legionella risk assessment was arranged for 16 April 2025.

The practice had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. 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 judgement for Medicines optimisation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.