Dr Michael Bass - Golders Green Road

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 risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sharps safety and sepsis awareness. On the day of the inspection a lone working risk assessment was not available for review, however this was submitted after the inspection.

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.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines in line with national guidance. The weekly checklist of emergency equipment and medicines could be strengthened to ensure that the readiness and availability of all individual items is clearly checked, recorded, and evidenced consistently.

Staff 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. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Although staff had access to safety data sheets, the practice had not carried out risk assessments for hazardous materials used within the practice as per Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). We brought this to the provider`s attention, who told us that risk assessment for all hazardous substances used within the practice would be undertaken.

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 had some systems in place to reduce the risk of fire, including annual servicing of the fire extinguishers. A fire risk assessment dated 2 March 2026 was made available for review, however, the provider advised that fire risk assessments had not been carried out previously. At the time of the inspection, the practice was in the process of addressing outstanding actions to reduce the overall risk rating from medium to low. These included the removal of redundant combustibles from the laboratory, updating fire safety policies and procedures to include details of responsible persons, ensuring all staff received annual fire awareness refresher training, carrying out fire drills on an annual basis, and implementing the use of the fire logbook provided by the risk assessor to record relevant fire safety checks and testing. Improvements were required to ensure that fire risk assessments are undertaken regularly going forward.

Following the inspection, we received evidence confirming that the principal dentist had completed fire awareness training.

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. The practice had long standing staff and satisfactory evidence of conduct in previous employment was not available for all members of staff. In addition, a full employment history, together with a satisfactory explanation of any gaps was not available for all members of staff. The provider advised that processes and relevant checklists had since been established to ensure that all required recruitment documentation is obtained at the point of employment for future staff.

In addition, for one member of the clinical staff, the most recent Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check on record was at a basic level rather than the required enhanced certificate. Following the inspection, the provider submitted a risk assessment to mitigate any potential risks during the interim period while a new enhanced DBS check is being 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. Improvements could be made that comprehensive written records of induction training were 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.

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 practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. Improvements could be made to ensure that annual staff appraisals were undertaken to identify individual development needs, and that appropriate records of these were maintained.

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.

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.