University of Portsmouth Dental Academy

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 dental academy was providing safe care in accordance 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 dental academy ensured equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. The dental academy ensured the facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations.

A fire safety risk inspection was carried out in line with the legal requirements and the management of fire safety was effective.

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

The dental academy carried out risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health. Improvements could be made to ensure the storage areas of hazardous substances are labelled with appropriate warning signs. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed.

The dental academy had implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. This included sharps safety.

Improvements could be made to ensure that all staff have a working knowledge of the identification and management of sepsis in relation to oral infections. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed.

The dental academy had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Glucagon was stored in a fridge which was not temperature monitored. The provider immediately addressed this shortfall and ordered a thermometer.

The academy had three defibrillators (AED) available. One of these was preconfigured in paediatric (child) mode and the knowledge of how to switch to adult mode could not be demonstrated by the team. We advised the manager of this and were told that a new defibrillator would be ordered which would be the same type that the students and staff were trained to use and more familiar with. We have since received evidence to confirm a new defibrillator has been ordered.
 

The dental academy had a recruitment policy and procedure to help them employ suitable staff. These reflected the relevant legislation.

The dental academy ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover.

Newly appointed staff had a structured induction, and clinical staff completed continuing professional development required for their registration with the General Dental Council.

The dental academy had arrangements in place to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

We saw the dental academy had effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.
 

The dental academy appeared clean and there was an effective schedule in place to ensure it was kept clean. We were shown audits of cleaning standards that were carried out every three months. We were told that visual checks were made weekly, but records of these were not kept and following our visit weekly checks would be recorded.

Staff followed infection control principles, including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

We found a quantity of x-ray holders stored in containers in the clinical area. Dental instruments stored outside pouches have limited shelf lives due to the risk of contamination.
Staff confirmed that the holders were not reprocessed (cleaned) at the end of each day in line with national guidance. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed.

Hazardous waste was segregated and disposed of safely.
We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments. This aligned with national guidance.

The dental academy had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance and the equipment in use was maintained and serviced.

Staff demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes, and we saw single use items were not reprocessed.

Staff had appropriate training, and the dental academy completed infection prevention and control (IPC) audits in line with current guidance.

The dental academy had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a bespoke risk assessment. Evidence to confirm that actions from the most recent Legionella risk assessment had been completed was not available. In particular, producing a written scheme of control for Legionella and a schedule for tap descaling. We have since received evidence to confirm these shortfalls have been addressed.

The dental academy had policies and procedures in place to ensure clinical waste was segregated and stored appropriately in line with guidance.
 

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