The Parkstone 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.

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

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely.

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.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use

The practice identified and managed risks in relation to sharps safety and sepsis awareness effectively. However, we saw that improvements were needed to ensure that a practice specific fire risk assessment was carried out and reviewed annually, and that the ongoing fire actions were completed. Following the inspection, we received confirmation that a fire risk assessment by a suitably qualified external contractor had been arranged.

Fire exits were clear and well signposted, and routine checks of the fire alarm system were carried out. However, improvement was needed to ensure that the checks of the emergency lighting and fire extinguishers were also documented.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. However, at the time of inspection buccal (oromucosal) Midazolam was not available. This was ordered immediately.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had participated in medical emergency scenario training. However, annual training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support was overdue. Following the inspection, we received confirmation that training had been arranged immediately.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff. However, these were not always being followed.

For example, we were not shown evidence of Hepatitis B immunity (titre levels) for 5 staff members, and a risk assessment had not been completed whilst immunity status was unknown; A full employment history was not available for 9 staff members and satisfactory evidence of conduct in previous employment was not available for any staff. Following the inspection, we received confirmation that risk assessments had been carried out for the staff members with unknown immunity status whilst awaiting blood test results.

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, however information on how to escalate concerns externally was not readily available.

Improvements could be made to the practice’s protocols to ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, is kept up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. For example, ensuring staff have received training to manage medical emergencies taking into account the guidelines issued by the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the General Dental Council.

There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, 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.

The practice had effective 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 had protocols to ensure safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. However, improvements were needed to the practice’s environmental cleaning schedules to ensure effective cleaning standards were maintained.

Equipment was maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions.

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.