Smile Dental Care Plymouth Also known as Smile Dental Care Group - Plymouth

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 not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations. 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 some of our concerns relates to the governance and the oversight of the risks.

During our inspection of this key question, we found concerns related to the safety of the premises and equipment and a lack of a learning culture at the practice.

This resulted in a breach of Regulation 15, premises and equipment.

You can find more details of our concerns in the detailed findings below.

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 systems in place were not effective at identifying and mitigating risks, and the practice was unable to provide sufficient evidence that risks were consistently recognised, assessed, or managed. For example, for lone working, where arrangements had not been formalised and no evidence was available regarding the cleaner.

Although servicing and equipment validation were recorded in line with manufacturer’s instructions, the unsatisfactory outcome of the 2021 Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) raised safety concerns due to insufficient evidence that necessary remedial actions had been taken and that the associated safety risks had been suitably managed.

The practice’s fire safety management systems were ineffective. There was insufficient evidence that risk assessments had been completed by a competent person. The fire evacuation plan had not been tested, and no routine in-house checks of fire equipment were conducted.

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.

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 had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use.

Systems for overseeing staff training were not effective. Some staff had not completed any mandatory training, including safeguarding, infection prevention and control, fire safety, sepsis awareness and Legionella awareness. Some staff had completed training, including continuing professional development, shortly before the inspection, but there was no evidence that this training had been consistently maintained at the required intervals prior to that.

The practice had recruitment systems and policies in place to employ suitable staff, including agency and locum workers. Records were available to demonstrate clinical staff had received appropriate vaccinations, including the vaccination to protect them against the Hepatitis B virus. However, improvements were needed to the systems to ensure that the effectiveness of the vaccination was consistently checked. Where a risk assessment was carried out this should adequately consider and mitigate all the risks to the individuals.

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.

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, 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 systems to ensure consistent and safe decontamination of used dental instruments. However, improvements were needed to ensure audits effectively identified areas for improvement and fully assessed staff adherence to infection control guidance. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence of checks confirming that external laboratories were registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and systems for disposing of out-of-date materials were not clearly established.

Improvements were needed in systems and oversight to ensure decontamination equipment checks were carried out consistently and in accordance with recognised guidance.

The practice had systems in place to reduce the risk of Legionella and other bacteria in water systems, following risk assessment and guidance. However, on the day of inspection, water temperature parameters were outside recommended limits, and there was insufficient evidence that water temperature checks had been carried out in 2025 or that Legionella was being effectively managed.

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.