Your New Smile Harwell

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found this practice was not providing well led care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

The provider had made insufficient improvements to putrightthe shortfalls and had not responded to the regulatory breach we found at our inspection on 18 December 2025.

We have told the provider to act.We will be following up on our concerns to ensure the provider has made the required improvements.

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 Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

At the inspection on 13 July 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulation:

Hazardous substances were stored in line with the control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) regulations.

COSHH safety data sheets were available for every COSHH identified product used in the practice.

The practice was able to demonstrate that the fire alarm was tested appropriately.

The practice was able to demonstrate that emergency lights were tested appropriately.

The practice was able to demonstrate that the fire alarm was serviced appropriately.

The practice was able to demonstrate that the emergency lights were inspected appropriately.
 

Routine annual testing of the handheld x-ray equipment was carried out.

The emergency drugs and equipment check log was completed.

Improvement should be made to ensure that all drugs and equipment are reviewed against the checklist in use. Specifically, dispersible aspirin was now present in the emergency medicines kit, but the checklist had not been updated to reflect this

Staff recruitment procedures were set up to ensure that appropriate checks were completed prior to new staff commencing employment at the practice

Environmental cleaning checklists were completed correctly.

The corridor floor appeared clean.

The practice was able to demonstrate that staff had oversight of the standard of environmental cleaning.

Treatment room cleaning records were available, and staff had oversight of the standard
of clinical area cleaning.

At the time of our visit the practice was having maintenance work carried out in the decontamination room which meant that we were unable to assess the equipment contained within.

The practice was able to demonstrate that manual cleaning gloves and brushes were changed regularly.

Dental unit waterline management guidance regarding the removal of water bottles reflected current practice.

The practice was able to demonstrate that appropriate validation, testing and periodic test procedures were carried out for the ultrasonic bath.

The autoclave validation logbook was organised.

Completed accident records were removed from the accident book and placed in secure storage.

We found a number of shortfalls that remained outstanding from our previous inspection:

Control of Substances to Health (COSHH) risk assessments were not carried out for any COSHH identified substance used in the practice.

The fire safety risk assessment presented to us was for the common areas of the building. The practice had not carried out one specifically for the practice.

The sharps risk assessment did not reflect current practice. Specifically, the risk assessment mentioned traditional re-sheathing of needles. The practice did not use traditional syringes and needles, making part of the risk assessment superfluous and inaccurate.

We were shown validation records for the autoclave. We were told the data logger failed in March 2026. Evidence was not available to confirm that a repair was in hand.

The most recent infection prevention and control audit did not reflect current practice. For example, questions about gloves and instrument containers were answered incorrectly.

Two infection prevention and control audits were carried out since our last visit. Neither audit included an analysis of the findings or outcomes which meant that areas for improvement could not be identified or acted upon.

The clinical waste bin was tethered to a fixed point to prevent unauthorised removal however the bin itself was not locked.

The practice had not had sight of the Legionella risk assessment carried out by the landlord of the building which meant they could not satisfy themselves that the practice was included in the risk assessment.
 

We also found a number of additional shortfalls:

Policies we viewed were not bespoke to the practice. Templates were not updated appropriately.

A radiation protection report was carried out by the radiation protection advisor in February 2026. Actions from this report remained outstanding at the time of our visit.

The flooring in the reception and corridor had warped which meant it was no longer impervious and easy to clean.

The most recent water temperature log for the sentinel taps seen was dated September 2025.

The practice building had a dedicated disabled persons parking bay.
At the time of our visit, we noted the parking space was occupied by a neighbouring tenant’s trade vehicle which means that those who genuinely need the space were disadvantaged by non-disabled drivers.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.