Antwerp House 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 accordance 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.

At the inspection on 7 April 2026, we found the following:

The practice had identified and managed some risks, yet improvements were still required to ensure all risks were identified and processes were embedded. For example, the sharps risk assessment did not suitably document the use of sharps, and the provider was unable to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the legal requirements. Following this feedback, we saw this risk assessment was updated.

The health and safety risk assessment had been updated and was now specific to this location.

The business continuity plan was not specific to this location and did not stipulate specific contingency plans and actions to take to demonstrate how the practice could continue to operate during and after a disruption. Following this feedback, we saw that this was updated.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. However, we saw that some items were missing. We saw that weekly checks were being completed by a staff member, yet these omissions had not been identified. Therefore, the process in place was ineffective. Additionally, staff lacked knowledge and understanding of the treatment of medical emergencies.

Whilst we identified that safety data sheets and risk assessments were present for some hazardous materials, they were not present for all necessary substances.

We saw that whilst some equipment had been serviced in line with manufacturer’s instructions, the process in place was ineffective as we identified ongoing issues. The air conditioning units were overdue for a routine service, and staff were initially unaware if the emergency lighting had been serviced. We also saw that the intra-oral radiograph units had only been recognised as overdue for their annual electromechanical checks following the announcement of this inspection. Additionally, the serial numbers recorded for this check, did not match the serial numbers on the performance reports which had been completed, and this had not been identified by the practice.

The mitigation of all risks in relation to fire had still not been effectively managed. Actions required following a fire risk assessment carried out in May 2025 remained outstanding. A further fire door survey report was completed on 7 October 2025. We saw several actions were required with high, medium and low priorities. We were not given any assurances as to the completion of these actions or timescales for completion.

Additionally, we saw that weekly fire alarm checks were generally being carried out in line with guidance, yet no contingency was in place to ensure these were completed in times of staff absence.

Fire drills were being carried out, yet these were not properly documented or evaluated. We saw previous fire drill reports which demonstrated that staff were not following correct procedures and fire drills were poorly conducted.

At the inspection on 7 April 2026, we found the following:

The practice had a recruitment policy, and the recruitment process had improved. However, concerns remained as the procedure in place did not always reflect relevant legislation to help them employ suitable staff. Not all staff had proof of right to work in the UK and staff were unaware of how this should be obtained. Not all staff had evidence of immunity to hepatitis B; we also identified a staff member who did not have appropriate levels of immunity following vaccinations, and this had not been identified by the practice. There was no associated risk assessment for any staff members. Additionally, not all staff had proof of conduct in previous employment. Therefore, improvements were still required to ensure the practice was complying with legal requirements in relation to employment.

We saw that the practice had made improvements in ensuring that staff training, including continuing professional development (CPD) was up to date and reviewed at the required intervals. However, further improvements are required to the systems for monitoring and tracking training to ensure that lapses do not occur.

At the inspection on 7 April 2026, we found the following:

The practice had infection control procedures that generally reflected published guidance. However, improvements were required to ensure the knowledgeability of staff, as staff we spoke with were unaware of some essential requirements.

The infection prevention and control audit that had been completed, had been identified as overdue following the announcement of this inspection.
 

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