Maryport Dental and Implant Centre

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.

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breach we found at our inspection on 28 August 2025.

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.

At our inspection of 28 August 2025, we found systems and processes in place to identify and manage risks, but these were not effective. We found reports relating to the condition of electrical wiring had not been fully responded to. The checks on emergency medicines and equipment had failed to identify items that were missing. Risk assessments on the management of Legionella had not been considered when making changes to equipment in the decontamination room. There was no servicing regime in place for air conditioning units in the practice, and the required number of fire extinguishers were not on the premises due to lack of planning of servicing of these. Processes to manage the use of NHS prescription pads were ineffective.

At our follow-up inspection on 23 March 2026, we found all systems and processes to identify, manage and mitigate risk has been revisited. The practice had taken a systematic approach to this, utilising the support of a computerised compliance tool to help co-ordinate governance and oversight.

We made checks to see how issues identified at our August 2025 inspection had been addressed, and whether systems now in place provide sufficient assurances that risk is managed effectively.

We were shown paperwork evidencing the required works on the practice electrical installation had been completed. From the new internal governance system in place, we saw that reminders had been set to alert practice managers when the next electrical fixed wire safety check was due.

We were shown documentation confirming that the required plumbing changes had been made, where an old washer disinfector in the decontamination room had been removed, reducing the risk of Legionella.

All air conditioning units had been serviced, and a reminder set on the internal compliance system to alert managers when the next service dates were approaching. All required fire extinguishers were in place.

Processes to manage and monitor the use of NHS prescription pads had been reviewed. The process now in place aligned closely with recognised guidance.

When we reviewed evidence available with staff, we observed that policies that were applicable, had been adapted to reflect implementation of improved oversight and governance that supported safe working processes. All policies were accessible to staff undertaking training and induction, and for any refresher training delivered throughout the year.

At our inspection of August 2025, we found processes in place to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities required strengthening. We saw that those assessing risk were not sufficiently knowledgeable in how to respond to, mitigate and balance risks. We also observed that systems in place to drive improvement were not effective, for example, in findings from audit and completion of full audit cycles to demonstrate improvement over time. We did not see evidence of an effective way of monitoring staff progress in their learning and development.

At our follow up inspection of March 2026, we found improvements had been made.

Staff with additional responsibilities had undertaken appropriate training, which was evidenced in documentation provided and from discussions with staff. Managers responsible for oversight of staff training and monitoring staff completion of continuing professional development had systems and processes in place to support this. We saw that staff with lead roles in decontamination, safeguarding, audit and management of medicines had completed relevant training, had access to on-line resources to support them in their work, and all training and development activity was recorded and available for checking via the new in-house compliance system.

As part of this follow-up inspection, we reviewed audits that had been undertaken recently. This included auditing of patient clinical records and patient consent forms. At our inspection of August 2025, we found that these two areas required greater focus. We also reviewed a sample of patient records to ensure that these were complete, legible and accurate. The process around patient consent had been improved; any costs involved were explained to the patient ahead of treatment. The consent forms clearly stated which clinician would be treating the patient, the job title of that clinician, and the scope of their practice. Patient clinical records had been strengthened by use of uniform templates, adding to completeness of records.

Oversight and management of risk had improved. Risk assessments were now more widely used, and tools to measure risk were used to track any increase or emerging risk.

At our inspection of August 2025, we found some issues related to infection prevention and control, and security of clinical waste. We observed that clinical waste bins were in a segregated area outside the building, but this area was accessible to all, and bins were not secured or tethered to stop them being moved or tampered with.

The practice were completing infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance, but these had not identified, that details for occupational health services in the event of needle stick injuries, were incorrect. We asked the provider to seek the correct information for local services and update these information posters.

In our follow-up inspection of March 2026, we found improvements had been made. All clinical waste bins standing outside the practice, were securely stored and locked, so they could not be moved or tampered with.

We observed that the correct information in relation to occupational health services for staff, had been checked and prominently displayed in the practice, for example in the decontamination room, each of the dental surgeries and in the staff break area. All phone numbers and contact details were up to date and correct, ready for staff to use in the event of injury.

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