Queensbury 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 identified and managed most risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sepsis awareness and lone working. We identified scope for improvement with the mitigation of risk related to some sharp’s safety. The provider informed us action would be taken to address this issue.

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 mostly reflected in our findings.

Staff could 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. Improvements could be made to ensure that all emergency equipment including masks and airways were in date and a portable suction device was available. The practice immediately replaced all out of date and missing equipment. They also obtained an additional oxygen cylinder for sedation as recommended in guidance.

The sedationist and dental nurses assisting with sedation had also completed immediate life support training. Following our feedback at the inspection the practice organised immediate life support for 31 March 2026, for the dentists providing treatment for patients under sedation in-line with sedation guidance.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) risk assessments and safety data sheets were available to staff.

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. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) equipment. Improvements could be made to undertake additional electromechanical servicing of the x-ray units in line with manufacturer’s instruction. The practice organised for the X-ray units to be serviced immediately after the inspection. 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 managed fire safety well, and fire exits were clear and well signposted.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use.

The practice had a recruitment policy that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff. However, on the day of the inspection, we saw that they were not always following this policy. For example, we saw that they had not completed a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS) for 3 dental nurses to the appropriate level and that evidence of previous employment and satisfactory conduct in previous employment had not been obtained for all staff. They had not obtained blood tests to show they had adequate immunity to Hepatitis B for 2 members of staff. The provider immediately sent evidence that DBS checks to the appropriate level had been obtained.

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, one-to-one meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

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

One staff member told us, “All staff are understanding and more than happy to help you with anything you need and supporting you.”

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance.

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. On the day of inspection we highlighted to the practice that the recorded hot water temperatures were not meeting the temperature recommended in the risk assessment. The practice immediately investigated this and replaced a faulty thermometer so that the temperatures recorded were accurate and as recommended.

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 annually which was not in line with current guidance. The provider assured us these would be completed 6 monthly in line with guidance in the future.

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