Bathampton 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.

The practice had processes to identify and manage risks, but improvement was needed to ensure processes were effective.

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

Emergency medicines were checked in line with national guidance.

The Automated External Defibrillator (AED) was not immediately accessible in a medical emergency due to it being stored in a secure treatment room which had 'staff only' key code access.

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

Hazardous substances were stored securely.

We saw a container in the cleaning cupboard which contained a clear liquid. We were unable to ascertain the contents of the container because it was not labelled in line with regulations.

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

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

The practice’s oversight of the fire safety management procedures, carried out by the building owner, was not effective. Specifically testing and servicing of equipment, and completion of the most recent fire risk assessment action plan.

The practice had two electronic doors at the front of the building. Staff were unaware how the doors would function if the power to the building failed in an emergency situation.

Externally stored general waste bins were not secured to prevent unauthorised interference and potential arson.

A compressor was located in the rear garden of the practice. The compressor cabinet was not locked or signed in accordance with health and safety laws. We have since received photographic evidence to confirm a sign is now in place.

NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency and locum staff.

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 ensured staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

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

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance, but improvement was needed.

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 procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems but improvement was needed. A legionella risk assessment was carried out in 2011. The practice was unable to evidence that the resulting action plan had been completed in full.

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

An externally stored clinical waste bin was stored at the rear of the practice. It was not secured to a fixed point to prevent unauthorised interference.

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

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

We noted that treatment rooms had limited air flow and were very warm. Staff confirmed that temperatures had been unworkable over the recent months.

Temperatures above 26° C may be considered excessive, especially when treating vulnerable patients and prolonged exposure to high temperatures may increase the risk of heat stress among staff.

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