Wycherleys Dental Practice

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 and sepsis awareness.

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.

Staff providing treatment to patients under sedation had also completed immediate life support training.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) risk assessments and safety data sheets were available for staff.

We saw some records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

The practice had arrangements for the safety of the X-ray equipment and most of the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and laser equipment. At the time of our inspection, we found documentation missing for the laser equipment. This was submitted to us following our inspection. We also found recommendations from the 3 yearly performance check carried out in July 2025 had not been addressed. We do not assess compliance with the Ionising Radiation regulations 2017 and the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) regulations 2017 but we do request services to provide evidence that demonstrates their compliance to inform our findings.

The practice managed fire safety and fire exits were clear and well signposted. We found the emergency lighting required servicing.

The practice had some systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. Security of medicines for dispensing required improvement we were told this would be rectified following our inspection.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedure to help them employ suitable staff. We found processes did not always reflect their policy as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were not always carried out at the point of recruitment and risk assessments were not completed.

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 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.

At the time of our inspection the practice did not ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

There were processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities within their capabilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they were happy to work in the practice.

The practice had infection control procedures that mostly reflected published guidance. We found not all items were pouched according to guidance following the sterilisation process. Following our inspection we received assurances from the practice that this had been addressed.

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.

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. At the time of our inspection, there was no evidence to demonstrate that actions had been addressed as recommended in the risk assessment. This was submitted following our inspection.

Although the practice appeared clean, they lacked protocols to ensure effective environmental cleaning was carried out. A cleaning schedule was implemented following our inspection. There were protocols for safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste.

Most equipment was maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions. We identified that the autoclave servicing was out of date; we were told arrangements would be made to address this following the inspection.

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.