UK Smiles Dental Practice Limited - Romford

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.

Although there are issues to be addressed, the impact of our concerns relates to the governance and the oversight of the risks, rather than a patient safety risk.

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 provider had some systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety.

The practice’s health and safety policies, procedures and risk assessments had not been adequately reviewed and updated to help manage potential risks.

Emergency equipment and medicines were checked in accordance with national guidance and staff could access these in a timely way. However, improvement was required to ensure they held the appropriate emergency medicines and equipment in accordance with the Resuscitation Council UK. Following feedback, the practice replaced the intravenous midazolam with buccal midazolam. They knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. Staff told us they participated in medical emergency scenario training.

The premises were visibly clean and well maintained. Improvement was required to ensure hazardous substances were all risk assessed including safety data sheets and stored safely in line with the (COSHH) Regulations 2022.

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. However, the required radiation protection information was unavailable to review by the inspection team. The provider told us this was stored at the main site. Furthermore, routine electromechanical checks were not completed on the X-ray equipment to ensure they were operating correctly. 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.

An Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) was unavailable on the day of inspection. Staff told us this had been conducted by the landlord. At the time of writing, we have not received evidence that this has been completed.

The provider failed to ensure the gas boiler received its annual service in line with regulatory requirements.

The arrangements to assess and mitigate risks of fire at the practice required improvements. We saw that the provider completed annual inhouse fire safety risk assessment. The provider told us that all matters relating to minimising and controlling fire risks were managed by the leaseholder. We were not assured that the provider had adequate oversight to ensure the management of fire safety at the premises was effective. There were no records to demonstrate that the fire alarms and the emergency lighting were regularly tested or serviced. There was an evacuation procedure, firefighting equipment was available and staff we spoke with knew what to do in the event of a fire and the location of the assembly point. We have not received evidence that areas of concerns have been addressed since the inspection.

The practice had a dispensing and prescribing policy in place; however, this was not consistently followed. The provider was dispensing common antimicrobials, without an effective system to monitor or track dispensing activity. There were also no adequate processes for managing medicine stock, including the monitoring of expiration dates and overall stock control. In addition, improved oversight was required to ensure prescription pads were stored securely when not in use.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff. Employment records for recruited members of staff were unavailable on the day of inspection; the provider told us they were kept at the other location. The evidence provided to us following the inspection identified gaps, for example, there was no evidence of conduct in previous employment and basic checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service were completed instead of enhanced for some clinical members of staff. Enhanced applications have since been made for these staff members.

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

The provider told us newly appointed staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction, however, records were not always maintained.

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. There were safeguarding policies; however, they needed improving to ensure that they were tailored to the service and that they included the local authority contact details.

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

There were processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. One member of staff told us that “it is a supportive and professional environment with good teamwork, opportunities for development, and a positive workplace culture. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during 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- “the team works well together, and there is a positive atmosphere.”

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.

Procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella needed improvements. A risk assessment undertaken in March 2026 identified several recommendations; however, these have not been implemented. There was no evidence that monthly hot and cold-water temperature checks were being recorded.

The practice had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. On the day of inspection, we found the mops to be stored incorrectly; following the inspection, we received evidence this was corrected.

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.