Transform Dental

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 mostly identified and managed risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sepsis awareness and lone working. However, we noted that the health and safety and sharps risk assessments did not reflect practice protocols. We also noted the sharps injury poster needed to be updated to reflect protocols for the practice if a sharps injury occurred. We discussed this with the provider and they submitted a new sharps injury poster and sharps risk assessment, and a new health and safety risk assessment, all completed on 9 July 2026.

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.

We noted checks on emergency equipment and medicines were not done in accordance with national guidance. As a result, some equipment was missing or stored at another practice. The emergency kit was relocated to the practice, and any remaining items were ordered during the inspection day. The provider created a new weekly medical emergency kit checklist following the inspection. They should ensure weekly checks are completed and documented consistently to provide sufficient oversight.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter.

Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. However, the practice had not reviewed the risk assessments in relation to the safe storage and handling of all the substances hazardous to health within the practice since June 2024. We discussed this with the provider and were assured these would be reviewed within the next 4-weeks.

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 provider had completed a fire risk assessment in June 2026 but did not have assurance this was completed by a competent person. Therefore, the provider booked a fire risk assessment to be completed by a competent person on 9 July 2026. We noted that the emergency lighting had not been serviced and was not being tested each month, we also discussed the importance of ensuring every member of staff should be involved in a fire drill every 12-months. The practice carried out a fire drill on 9 July 2026. The practice should take action to implement any recommendations in the practice's new fire safety risk assessment and ensure ongoing fire safety management is effective.

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

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff. However, this was not always followed.

On the day of inspection, we checked 8 recruitment files. We noted references were not requested or available for 5 members of staff before they commenced employment at the practice. The practice should ensure they consistently follow their recruitment policies and procedures, to ensure that appropriate checks are completed prior to new staff commencing employment at the practice.

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. We noted that the safeguarding flowcharts contained out-of-date contact numbers. The provider acted immediately and updated the flowcharts on 9 July 2026.

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

However, we noted that systems and processes for ensuring staff had completed the correct levels of training at the required frequencies were not always working effectively. This resulted in gaps of assurance for training in safeguarding, Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R), fire safety awareness and learning disability and autism awareness training. The practice should take action to ensure that all the staff receive training required for their role to an appropriate level and at the correct frequency.

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. There were 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.

However, decontamination of dental instruments protocols were not always followed appropriately. On the inspection day, we noted inconsistencies with processing and pouching dental materials, some of which were single-use items. We also noted biofilm residue within distilled water bottles. The provider took immediate action to address these shortfalls. They should improve their assurance and oversight of infection control procedures to ensure staff are consistently following policy, procedure and best practice guidance.

The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment and current guidance. However, we noted hot and cold-temperature checks were not being carried out or documented as described in a Legionella risk assessment. We discussed this with the provider and new hot and cold-water temperature checks were carried out on 10 July 2025, which showed the water was at the correct temperature. The provider should ensure ongoing water monitoring checks are completed and documented in line with the recommendations of their Legionella risk assessment.

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