John Sullivan Dental Practice Limited

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.

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 20 January 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulation:

The practice identified and managed risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sharps safety, sepsis awareness and lone working. Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. They felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and this was reflected in our findings.

The practice had carried out a health and safety risk assessment to help them manage risks to staff and patients in September 2025. A new sharps injury poster had been created, and staff were clear about what they would do if they had a sharps injury.

Staff could now access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. They knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. We reviewed the new cleaning schedule and cleaning logs during the follow up inspection.

Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. All hazardous substances used at the practice had COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to Health risk assessments.

The practice managed fire safety well, and fire exits were clear and well signposted. Staff were testing fire equipment and had participated in regular fire drills and fire training. We reviewed the fire risk assessment completed on the 17 December 2025 and documentation of a fire drill on 11 December 2025.

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

We reviewed 5 staff recruitment files during the follow up inspection. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. We saw evidence that 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.

We saw evidence that the provider 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, one-to-one meetings, during clinical supervision and practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staffdemonstratedknowledge of safeguarding; they told us they would report any concerns they had to the principal dentist or the practice manager. They introduced a formal process to Was Not Brought (WNB). Was Not Bought replaced the previous terminology Did Not Attend, to encourage and emphasise the importance of considering the reasons behind missed appointments and the safeguarding implications of this.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance. During the follow up inspection, we observed staff using adequate personal protective equipment, they checked the temperature of water when undertaking manual cleaning, and staff had access to the data logger for the autoclave.

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 effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment and current guidance.

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

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