North Hykeham Health 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 accordance 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 provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred, care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged

Staff kept up to date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

Staff had completed post registration qualifications in radiography, fluoride application, oral health education and sedation.

The practice provided conscious sedation for patients. The practice’s systems included checks before and after treatment, emergency equipment requirements, medicines management, sedation equipment checks, and staff availability and training.

The practice provided dental care in domiciliary settings, for example, care homes or in people’s residence, and undertook suitable risk assessments.

The practice was involved with a preventative toothbrushing programme incorporating 30 local schools and a local authority driven epidemiology survey, which assesses the oral health of young children in school and adults over 65 in residential care facilities.

We looked at a selection of patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was in line with recognised guidance.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

We saw evidence the dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took.

The practice had systems for prescribing medicines in line with current guidance. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

We discussed and reviewed the referral process into the practice and found this was being managed effectively.

Where applicable, patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national faster diagnostic pathways.

Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred, care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged

Staff kept up to date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

Staff had completed post registration qualifications in radiography, fluoride application, oral health education and sedation.

The practice provided conscious sedation for patients. The practice’s systems included checks before and after treatment, emergency equipment requirements, medicines management, sedation equipment checks, and staff availability and training.

The practice provided dental care in domiciliary settings, for example, care homes or in people’s residence, and undertook suitable risk assessments.

The practice was involved with a preventative toothbrushing programme incorporating 30 local schools and a local authority driven epidemiology survey, which assesses the oral health of young children in school and adults over 65 in residential care facilities.

We looked at a selection of patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was in line with recognised guidance.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

We saw evidence the dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took.

The practice had systems for prescribing medicines in line with current guidance. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

We discussed and reviewed the referral process into the practice and found this was being managed effectively.

Where applicable, patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national faster diagnostic pathways.

Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

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. We observed use of personal protective equipment and we saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed.

Used dental instruments were processed for cleaning off site; staff demonstrated the validation process used to assure themselves the instruments sent for processing were returned, clean, sterilized and ready for use. Staff carried out regular spot checks on returned instruments to ensure the processing standards remained in line with guidance.

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.

The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per 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.