University of Bath Dental 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.

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.

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.
Staff 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. We noted that 6 items of emergency equipment were not present.

Glucagon, a medicine used to rapidly raise blood sugar in people with diabetes, was stored in the fridge. The practice was unable to demonstrate that the temperature was monitored to ensure it remained between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius.

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

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment, but improvements were needed.

Local rules did not reference current legislation or equipment in place.

The practice was unable to evidence that action had been taken following the outcome of a performance check of the X-ray machine in 2025. Action included seeking advice from the medical physics expert (MPE).

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.

The practice’s oversight of the fire safety management procedures, carried out by the practice owner, was not effective. Specifically testing and servicing of equipment, exit route signage and completion of the 2024 fire risk assessment action plan.

NHS prescription pads were kept securely; however, they were not tracked to prevent unauthorised misuse. We have since received evidence which confirms this shortfall has been addressed.
 

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation. However, these were not consistently followed, and oversight of recruitment checks for locum staff required improvement.

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.

Oversight of staff training, including continuing professional development required improvement.

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 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’s infection control procedures reflected published guidance, but improvement was needed.

Unwrapped dental instruments were stored in treatment room drawers.

The treatment room windowsill was not complete and impervious. This made effective cleaning a barrier.

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 inside the practice building.

Externally stored clinical waste bins were not tethered to a fixed point to prevent unauthorised removal.

The most recent infection prevention and control audit did not reflect current practice. The practice could not provide any previous audits.

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