Archived: Stokesley Dental Practice Also known as Paton Taylor and Harris

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 identified and managed risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sharps safety, sepsis awareness and lone working.

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.

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. We noted that the recommended needle lengths for administering adrenaline were not included in the medical emergency kit. Once highlighted to the practice they acted quickly and ordered these on the day.

We also noted that the practice had implemented a system to document all items used during a medical emergency. This ensured that a clear and accurate record could be maintained and handed directly to paramedics on arrival, supporting continuity of care and effective handover.

Practice staff 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 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.

The practice managed fire safety well, and fire exits were clear and well signposted. We saw that the practice had implemented signage that the fire marshal would carry with them in the instance of fire that said, “There is a fire please follow me to safety.” This was to show to any patients that may have dementia or had a hearing impairment who to follow during a fire.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely. However, we noted on the day that a log could be kept to monitor their use. Once highlighted to the practice we were assured that this would be implemented.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff. We noted on the day that the practice was not always following their policy in terms of asking for references for newly appointed staff. Once highlighted to the practice we were assured that this would be consistently adhered to going forward.

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 ensured 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 wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, one-to-one meetings, 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 effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment and current guidance. We noted that dip slide tests had not been completed in line with recognised guidance, once highlighted to the practice we were assured that they would amend their process to incorporate these tests going forward.

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.