Par River 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

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.

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.

The premises were visibly well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

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.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. However, this was not effective. We were unable to see all required documents for the x-ray equipment. We have been assured by the practice that this is now in place.

The practice did not always identify and manage risks effectively. This included lone working and infection prevention control.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, however, these procedures were not always followed. This meant that some staff files did not have the required documents.

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 did not always ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. In particular, fire safety awareness, learning disability and autism awareness.

There were 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.

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

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. 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 in clinical and high use areas, however improvement should be made to ensure low use areas are included in cleaning schedules.

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

The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance. However, this was not always reflected in current practice. Some equipment used was not approved for use and storage of instruments was not in line with recognised guidance.

The practice's infection prevention and control procedures were not always followed effectively. We found that mops were not stored in a manner that allowed them to dry fully between use.

Improvement should be made to the practice's healthcare waste handling protocols to ensure waste is segregated and disposed of in accordance with the relevant regulations and guidance. This was discussed with the practice, and assurance was given that a new system would be implemented immediately.

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