Iver 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 managed at the practice, however this was not fully reflected in our findings.

They knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

Checks of emergency equipment and medicines did not follow national guidance to ensure availability and suitability for use.

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

The practice had not carried out risk assessments in relation to the safe storage and handling of every substance hazardous to health that was in use by staff.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

The X-ray equipment had not been maintained according to manufacturer’s requirements. Three yearly quality assurance testing was overdue for both X-ray machines.

We do not assess compliance with the Ionising Radiation regulations 2017 and the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) regulations 2017 but we do request services to provide evidence that demonstrates their compliance to inform our findings.

Improvement was needed to the provider’s fire safety management procedures. For example, we found that one fire escape route was not appropriately signed, automatic emergency lighting was not available, and fire drills had not been completed.

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

Improvement was needed to ensure accurate, complete and detailed recruitment records were maintained for all staff.

Staff 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.

Improvement was needed to ensure staff kept up to date with their mandatory training and their continuing professional development.

There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.

A lone worker risk assessment had not been carried out for the out-of-hours cleaner.

Staff discussed their learning needs, general well-being and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals and ongoing informal discussions.

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

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.

Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. However, improvement was needed to ensure that infection control procedures reflected published guidance.

The practice did not have adequate procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella or other bacteria developing in water systems. A legionella risk assessment was completed on 4 November 2025; however, actions remained outstanding. Sentinel tap monitoring was ineffective, and staff were unclear which outlets required testing.

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

Improvements should be made to ensure staff documented oversight of the standard of cleaning carried out in the practice.

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

The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance.

An annual infection prevention and control statement was not available.

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