Apollonia Dental & Cosmetic Centre

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.

Whilst 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’s systems to manage risk were not always effective. In particular, risks associated with fire safety, maintenance of equipment and premises, medical emergencies, hazardous substances and staff recruitment.

Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. However, whilst the practice had some control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) risk assessments, improvements were required to ensure all hazardous substances had a COSHH risk assessment and safety data sheet.

Staff could access most emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. They knew how to respond to a medical emergency and most staff had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. We noted on the inspection day that some items were missing from the medical emergency kit. The practice acted immediately and sent evidence these had been ordered in the days following the inspection.

The management of fire safety required improvement. On the day of inspection, the practice could not provide any evidence a fire risk assessment had been conducted by a competent person, or the emergency lighting had undergone annual duration testing and there were visible faults on the fire alarm. The practice acted immediately and sent evidence these were booked to be completed and rectified on 16 March 2026. In addition, the practice was not carrying out weekly fire alarm testing, monthly emergency lighting testing and monthly visual inspections of the fire extinguisher. We discussed this with staff and were assured they would implement this going forward. We were assured by the immediate response that the risk to safety was mitigated. Improvements must be made to ensure better governance of fire safety.

On the day of inspection, we noted there was no evidence of an electrical installation condition report (EICR) for the premises. The practice had identified this prior to the inspection and sent evidence following the inspection this was booked for the 20 March 2026.

We noted one of the compressors was overdue its annual service and pressure vessel inspection. The practice had identified this prior to the inspection and sent evidence following the inspection this was booked for 2 April 2026.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and handheld X-ray equipment.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff. However, improvements were required to ensure these were consistently followed. On the day of inspection, we checked 6 staff recruitment files and noted improvements were required to the oversight of staff recruitment records. In particular, ensuring all staff have had a Disclosing and Barring Service check appropriate to their role at the time of recruitment, have appropriate immunity to vaccine-preventable blood-borne viruses for clinical staff, and evidence of conduct in previous employment for all staff members.

Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. However, improvements were required to the oversight of staff training and continuing professional development. We noted some mandatory training was not available. The practice acted immediately and sent evidence these had been completed or booked to be completed following the inspection.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice.

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 practice had some procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems. We noted the Legionella risk assessment did not cover all floors of the practice. The practice had already identified this prior to the inspection and had booked a new Legionella risk assessment following the installation of a new treatment room in April 2026.

We noted not all equipment was consistently maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions. In particular, one of the autoclaves was overdue its service, pressure vessel inspection and validation. The practice sent evidence in the days following the inspection this was booked to be completed on 2 April 2026.

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 protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste.

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.