Covent Garden Dental Clinic

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

Whilst there are issues to be addressed, the impact of our concerns relates to the governance and oversight of the risks, rather than a patient safety risk. We received assurances that risks were mitigated and acted upon immediately.

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 provider had some systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety.

The practice’s health and safety policies, procedures and risk assessments had not been accurately reviewed to help manage potential risks, however, these have been acted on following our inspection.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Most staff members had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. The provider did not have risk assessments in place for all substances hazardous to health used within the practice Safety data sheets were not available to staff.

The provider had not ensured all equipment maintained their good working and according to manufacturers’ instructions; for example, the oil-based compressor was last serviced in October 2018 which meant that servicing had lapsed. We received evidence following the inspection that a new air compressor had been installed and was now in use. Other equipment had received servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

An Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) was unavailable on the day of inspection. Staff told us this had not been conducted to assess the premises electrical installation condition. This was completed following the inspection.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment, and the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT); however, the provider told us it was not in use.

The arrangements to assess and mitigate risks of fire at the practice required improvements. We reviewed a fire safety risk assessment dated 28 April 2025. Recommendations that were made remained unaddressed at the time of the inspection. We were not assured that the provider had adequate oversight to ensure the management of fire safety at the premises was effective. There were no records to demonstrate that the fire alarms were regularly tested or serviced. Additionally, there were no fire extinguishers and no evidence that regular fire drills were undertaken. The logbook containing this information was unavailable for review as it was kept in a locked box. There was an evacuation procedure and staff we spoke with knew what to do in the event of a fire. Following the inspection, we received evidence that areas of concerns have been addressed.

The practice system for managing NHS prescription pads needed improving to ensure secure storage when not in use. There was no process in place to monitor and track their use.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, however, this was not always adhered to. We looked at employment records for recently recruited members of staff and found that there were gaps, for example, there was no evidence of conduct in previous employment.

The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover.

Newly appointed staff told us they had received an induction; however, records were not maintained for individual members of staff.

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were always sufficient levels of staff on duty. They demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding. There were safeguarding policies; however, they needed improving to ensure they were current, bespoke to the service and included information on how to identify, report and deal with suspected abuse.

Whilst we saw some evidence of training, we found that systems were not sufficiently embedded to ensure it remained up-to-date and reviewed at required intervals.

Staff told us they discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during 1-to-1 meetings, practice meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff stated they 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.

We observed use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single-use items were not reprocessed.

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.

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.