The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Nunneleyhouse Dental Practice

22 Bridge Street, Burton On Trent, Staffordshire, DE14 1SY (01283) 568087

Provided and run by:
Mr. Jaswant Tunday

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

We undertook a follow-up on-site inspection on 9 June 2026. This was carried out to review the actions taken by the registered provider to improve the quality of care and to assess whether the practice was meeting legal requirements.

We had previously undertaken an announced on-site inspection of Nunneleyhouse Dental Practice on 5 December 2025. We had found the registered provider was not providing well-led care and was in breach of regulation 17 good governance and regulation 19 fit and proper persons employed of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

A follow-up inspection was carried out on 24 February 2026, we found the practice had met regulation 19 fit and proper persons employed but were not complying with regulation 12 safe care and treatment and regulation 17 good governance.

During our second follow-up inspection on 9 June 2026, we found the practice had met regulations.

The practice had effective systems to identify and manage risks, including infection prevention and control.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

Recruitment procedures reflected current legislation.

Staff provided care and treatment in line with current guidance. They treated patients with dignity and respect and ensured access to care, support, and treatment when required.

The practice is in Burton on Trent, Staffordshire and provides private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

Although there was step-free access into the building, there was no step-free access into the treatment room. Car parking spaces were available near the practice, including dedicated parking for disabled people.

The practice had 1 treatment room. At the time of our inspection, there was a total of 2 staff, of which there was a dentist and a trainee dental nurse. We gathered feedback from staff and spoke to both staff members during our inspection.

 

During an assessment under our new approach

We undertook a follow-up on-site inspection on 24 February 2026. This was carried out to review the actions taken by the registered provider to improve the quality of care and to assess whether the practice was meeting legal requirements.

We had previously undertaken an announced on-site inspection of Nunneleyhouse Dental Practice on 5 December 2025. We had found the registered provider was not providing well-led care and was in breach of regulation 17 good governance and regulation 19 fit and proper persons employed of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

During our follow-up inspection, we found the practice had met regulation 19 fit and proper persons employed but were not complying with regulation 12 safe care and treatment or regulation 17 good governance.

The practice had ineffective systems to manage risks relating to infection prevention and control, clinical waste management, Legionella, electrical and fire safety.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

Recruitment procedures reflected current legislation.

There was a lack of a culture of continuous improvement.

Staff provided care and treatment in line with current guidance. They treated patients with dignity and respect and ensured access to care, support, and treatment when required.

The practice is in Burton on Trent, Staffordshire and provides private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

Although there was step-free access into the building, there was no step-free access into the treatment room. Car parking spaces were available near the practice, including dedicated parking for disabled people.

The practice had 1 treatment room. At the time of our inspection, there was a total of 2 staff, of which there was a dentist and a trainee dental nurse. We gathered feedback from staff and spoke to both staff members during our inspection.

The provider was not complying with Regulation 12: Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17: Good governance. Full details of the regulations the provider was not meeting are within the inspection findings below.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

 

 

During an assessment under our new approach

We carried out this announced on-site inspection on 5 December 2025.

We found the practice had not met all regulations.

Not all risks associated with the undertaking of regulated activities had been suitably identified and mitigated.

Recruitment procedures did not reflect current legislation, and the practice did not have an effective system to monitor staff training to ensure action could be taken quickly if training requirements were not being met.

Infection prevention and control procedures were not fully in-line with published guidance.

Some governance processes were ineffective, and we found a lack of a culture of continuous improvement.

Staff provided care and treatment in line with current guidance. They treated patients with dignity and respect and ensured access to care, support, and treatment when required.

Although there was step-free access into the building, there was no step-free access into the treatment room. Car parking spaces were available near the practice, including dedicated parking for disabled people.

The practice had 1 treatment room. At the time of our inspection, there was a total of 2 staff, of which there were a dentist and a trainee dental nurse. We gathered feedback from staff and spoke to both staff members during our inspection.

The provider was not complying with Regulation 17, Good governance and Regulation 19, Fit and proper persons employed. Full details of the regulations the provider was not meeting are within the inspection report.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

 

21 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected this service in March and April 2013, and we found the registered person was not compliant in areas relating to recruitment and records. We issued a warning notice in relation to recruitment to ensure improvements were made by 10 May 2013. We carried out this inspection to check the improvements in these areas. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the registered person and the staff did not know we were coming.

We saw recruitment records demonstrated there were now effective systems in place to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people using the service who maybe considered vulnerable.

The safe storage of records had been reviewed to ensure that information about people was kept securely to maintain their confidentiality.

Infection control procedures were in place to ensure equipment was sterilised to a suitable standard and was safe to use.

17 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service in March 2013, and we found the service needed to improve in areas relating to infection control and recruitment. We carried out this inspection to check the improvements in these areas. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the registered person and the staff did not know we were coming.

There was one dentist, and two staff working in the dental practice. We talked with the dentist and one member of staff during our inspection, and we also spoke with two people using the service.

People using the service told us that the dental practice was relaxed, treatments were explained and the staff were friendly and helpful. One person told us, 'I've been happy with all the treatment I've received, and everything gets explained to me.'

The arrangements for cleaning and sterilising dental instruments had been improved. This meant the service could now demonstrate that equipment was being cleaned to an appropriate standard.

We found that the provider did not operate an effective recruitment procedure. Staff had not had the required checks to ensure they were suitable to work within the service. This meant people could not be confident that the staff were suitable and safe to work in the service.

Systems were not always in place to ensure records were kept securely. This meant that people could not be confident that their information was kept confidentially.

7 March 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected this service in December 2012, and we found the service was not compliant in areas relating to infection control, decision making, record keeping, recruitment practices and quality monitoring. We carried out this inspection to check the improvements in these areas. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the registered person and the staff did not know we were coming. We spoke with the registered person, three staff and one person using the service.

The registered person was changing the decontamination facilities in the service. The work had not yet been completed to ensure decontamination process and procedures were of a good standard.

Quality audits had been carried out to demonstrate how the service was managed. People using the service were able to comment on how the service was delivered.

Staff had been recruited without the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work at the service. This meant people using the service received support from staff who had not been confirmed as suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Records were available to demonstrate equipment had been tested and suitably maintained. This meant the registered person could demonstrate they were safe to use.

3 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. Our inspection was discussed and arranged two days in advance. This was to ensure that we had time to see and speak to the staff working at the practice, as well as people registered with the service. We consulted the local primary care trust prior to our inspection to receive feedback about the service.

People we spoke with told us their treatment could be arranged at a convenient time and they did not experience any lengthy delays. People could consider their treatment options and any costs involved and did not have to make a decision immediately.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the service and one person told us, 'He always tells me everything that he's doing and I've always been happy with my treatment.'

Quality audits had not been carried out to demonstrate the service was managed effectively and quality was maintained. We identified concerns with how dental equipment was cleaned to ensure it was safe to use. Systems needed improvement regarding how the equipment and decontamination room were maintained.

Staff had been recruited without robust checks to ensure they were suitable to work at the service.