The Park Row 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.

Although there are issues to be addressed, the impact of our concerns relates to the governance and the oversight of the risks, rather than a patient safety risk.

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 sharps risks effectively and staff described the processes.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. However, not all the necessary items were available, and some had expired. Action was taken to obtain replacements immediately.

Staff had not received appropriate accredited training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support. We were later sent evidence staff had been booked on an appropriate course.

We highlighted staff should also be made aware of the signs and symptoms of sepsis.

The premises were visibly clean. Hazardous substances were not risk assessed or clearly labelled. Evidence was sent after the inspection that substances in use had now been labelled appropriately.

An electrical condition inspection was carried out in February 2025, but the issues raised in the report had not been risk assessed or actioned. This was addressed immediately and evidence sent of satisfactory certification. The provider also addressed trailing electrical wires which were highlighted during the inspection. Portable equipment testing was carried out at appropriate intervals.

The building owner was responsible for fire safety and maintenance of the fire alarm system. Fire exits were clear and well signposted and fire extinguishers were in place and serviced appropriately. Staff participated in regular evacuation drills. We were told the building owner carried out regular tests of the fire safety systems. After the inspection the provider added fire extinguisher visual checks to their checklist to ensure these were accessible and operational. We highlighted staff should receive training on fire safety awareness.

Systems were not in place for appropriate and safe management of medicines. The provider did not have a medicines management policy or adequate stock control system for prescription medicines which were held at the practice. They took immediate action to secure prescription medicines and introduce a system to track the use of these. Dispensed medicines were labelled appropriately in line with guidance.

Clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover.

Staff told us there were effective processes to support and develop staff, and discuss their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development. Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including volunteers, and we saw right to work evidence had been obtained where appropriate. However, the policy was not followed. A tick list was in place which suggested some pre-employment checks had been carried out but these could not be evidenced as appropriate staff records were not held. There was no system to risk assess where evidence of immunity to bloodborne viruses were not available for clinical staff.

Newly appointed staff did not receive an appropriate role specific structured induction. These were carried out and sent to us after the inspection.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were enough staff on duty. 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. Evidence of safeguarding training was sent after the inspection.

The practice did not have systems to assess training needs for staff or volunteers at the start of employment or ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. The provider assured us this would be addressed.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance. We saw the decontamination area was cluttered and this resulted in a lack of space for staff to process instruments and maintain cleanliness effectively. This was addressed immediately and evidence sent after the inspection.

Staff demonstrated some knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. However, we saw some single-use items were being reprocessed. These were disposed of immediately and the policy updated. Sterilised instruments were visibly clean, pouched and stored appropriately. However, they were not marked with the date to reprocess them by.

Staff used personal protective equipment and decontaminated dental instruments after use. The brush used to clean contaminated instruments was not a long-handled type to protect staff from sharps injuries, and the temperature of the cleaning solution was not monitored.

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. We saw satisfactory water quality testing had been carried out and staff used a water conditioning agent in line with manufacturer’s instructions. One of the dental unit waterline bottles contained visible staining and residue, this was replaced immediately. The provider carried out checks of hot and cold-water temperatures, but these were not documented. Their premises checklist was later updated to keep a record of these. We highlighted staff should receive training on Legionella awareness.

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 steriliser was serviced annually, but we were not assured the provider’s own validation checks of the steriliser were carried out correctly and we saw some of the indicator strips used to validate decontamination equipment had expired which may affect their reliability. We signposted them to the manufacturer’s instructions and evidence of satisfactory testing was sent once the correct process was followed.

The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance. However, these did not reflect the issues highlighted during the inspection.

The judgement for Medicines optimisation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.