Porchester Dental Practice

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 line with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

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 practice identified and managed most risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sharps safety, sepsis awareness and lone working.

Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. They felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and this was broadly reflected in our findings.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines; however, they should ensure that they are checked weekly- in line with Resuscitation Council UK guidance. Following the inspection, the provider confirmed that medicines were now checked weekly and missing items (spacer device and dispersible aspirin) had been obtained. Staff 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 and free from clutter. We noted that the flooring in the 2 clinical rooms was not continuous or adequately sealed. The provider should consider replacing or repairing the flooring to ensure it remained in line with legislations and guidance.

The provider should ensure risk assessments were completed for all substances hazardous to health used within the practice. We saw that safety data sheets were available to staff.

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.

We reviewed the fire risk assessment dated 24 June 2025, which had been completed internally. The provider should consider obtaining input from a competent person to ensure risks are appropriately identified and mitigated. There was a Bunsen burner (used during the preparation for dentures, for example to heat dental waxes and other materials used in the construction and adjustment of dentures) onsite, however this was not included in the risk assessment. The provider had carried out fire drills, firefighting equipment had received servicing, and fire exits were clear and well signposted.

The practice had a dispensing and prescribing policy which was not consistently followed. The provider dispensed antimicrobials; however, improvements were required to ensure accurate records of dispensing and stock levels were maintained. NHS prescription pads were kept securely; however, a process was not 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 consistently followed. We did not see evidence that Schedule 3 information had been fully obtained and maintained for all relevant staff. This included documentary evidence such as, full employment history, conduct in previous employment/s, checks with disclosure and barring service (DBS) and evidence of immunity level through titre levels. The provider told us improvements would be made to reflect legislation.

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.

The system in place to monitor and oversee completion of mandatory staff training including continuing professional development needed improving to ensure training records were kept up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, one-to-one meetings, during clinical supervision, 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 infection control procedures that reflected published guidance.

Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

Staff used personal protective equipment and decontaminated dental instruments after use, in line with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single-use items were not reprocessed.

Fabric curtains were present in one of the treatment rooms which the provider told us were cleaned regularly. The provider should consider maintaining documentation relating to the dates they were laundered to support recommendations in line with effective cleaning guidance.

The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment completed in 2011 and current guidance. The provider should consider commissioning a new risk assessment to reflect the current condition at the practice.

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 autoclave was located on the lower ground floor of the practice that did not have natural ventilation. We observed that a dehumidifier was in use, however, the provider had not completed a formal risk assessment to determine whether the ventilation arrangements, including the use of the dehumidifier adequately controlled heat, humidity and steam.

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.