- Dentist
Marble Arch Dental Centre
Assessment report published 16 March 2026
Contents
Judgements
Our view of the service
We undertook a follow-up on-site inspection on 11 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 unannounced on-site inspection of Marble Arch Dental Centre on 8 September 2025. We had found the registered provider was not providing safe or well-led care and was in breach of regulations 12, Safe care and treatment; Regulation 13, Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment; Regulation 17, Good governance; Regulation 18, Staffing 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 completed on 2 December 2025, where we found the practice had met Regulations 12, 13, 18 and 19. A further follow up inspection was completed on 11 February 2026 to review the improvements made in relation to Regulation 17, and to check that the new processes and improvements made had become embedded.
During our follow-up inspection, we found the practice had met regulation 17.
There was effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement.
The practice had developed effective systems to identify and manage risks, including the risks associated with fire safety, the management of medical emergencies, radiation safety, sharps safety, infection prevention and control, and clinical waste.
The practice had developed robust safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles and recruitment procedures reflected current legislation.
Marble Arch Dental Centre is in the City of Westminster, London and provides NHS and private dental care and treatment for adults and children.
There was step-free access to the practice, with 1 surgery located on the ground floor, and public transport links were available in the vicinity of the practice.
The practice had 6 treatment rooms. At the time of our inspection, there was a total of 24 staff, of which there were 7 dentists, 9 dental nurses, and 8 receptionists. The practice manager was the registered manager and practice owner and did not work clinically. We spoke to a range of staff during our inspection, including 1 dentist, 1 receptionist and the registered manager.