Mark Kent Dental Surgery

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 practice had some systems in place to manage risks effectively, and staff were able to describe the relevant processes, including those related to sepsis awareness and lone working. However, improvements were required to ensure the availability of a safer sharps system and the implementation of effective procedures to ensure that contaminated sharps were disposed of by the clinician at the point of use. Following inspection feedback, the provider told us that a revised sharps safety protocol had been implemented and would be adhered to.

Most medical emergency medication and equipment were available in line with national guidance. However, on the day of the inspection clear face masks for use with a self-inflating bag were observed to be old and worn. In addition, a child self-inflating bag with reservoir and child oxygen mask with reservoir and tubing were not available. In response to our inspection feedback the provider told us that these items had been ordered. Further improvements were required to ensure that weekly checks of emergency medicines and equipment were undertaken to confirm readiness, in line with Resuscitation Council UK guidance.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. They also participated in medical emergency scenario training.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. However, 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). Without risk assessments, there is no systematic identification of potential hazards. In addition, staff did not have access to the safety data sheets of hazardous materials used within the service.

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. However, a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment carried out by a person who had the qualifications, skills, competence and experience to do so was not available for review. This meant that key fire risks had not been adequately identified or assessed in a way that reflected the environment within the service. In addition, we found that fire escape routes and fire exits were not clearly indicated with appropriate signage. There was no suitable emergency lighting system or evidence that the need for such a system had been assessed. Fire doors were not installed and there was no evidence that the practice had assessed whether fire doors were required. We further noted that smoke detectors were tested bi-annually rather than the recommended weekly frequency. The testing log did not specify which detectors had been checked, and the most recent entry was dated 19 August 2018. Records of fire awareness training for staff was not available for review and structured fire evacuation drills had not been undertaken. Overall, we were not assured that fire safety systems and processes were effective in ensuring that risks associated with fire were adequately identified and mitigated. In response to our inspection feedback the provider told us that a fire risk assessment had been completed by a competent person on 17 April 2026. The assessment identified a number of recommendations, including the installation of an emergency lighting system, fire doors and additional smoke detectors. The provider stated that these actions would be implemented as soon as possible.

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 concerned with the provision of health and social care, or work with children or vulnerable adults, 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.

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.

Evidence of role-specific training or continuous professional development was not available for all members of staff. Missing training certificates included but were not limited to, evidence of training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and children, fire safety, mental capacity and interacting with people with a learning disability or autism. Overall, we were not assured that there were effective systems in place to monitor training to ensure that all core and role-specific training had been completed or to enable timely action where training requirements had not been met. Following the inspection, the provider advised that all staff would complete the required role-specific core training within the coming weeks.

There were some 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. Appraisal records dated December 2025 were available for some members of staff. Historical appraisal records were not available for review.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice. One staff member told us, “[The dentist] is always available to listen to any suggestions a staff member may have regarding the smooth running of the practice. We have regular staff meetings to discuss and questions or queries we may need to raise.”

The practice infection control procedures did not always reflect published guidance. We observed a mixture of unwrapped and wrapped instruments being sterilised within the same autoclave cycle. This created uncertainty regarding whether a vacuum or non-vacuum cycle should be used. In addition, handpieces of the same type were pouched together, which increased the risk of cross-contamination during retrieval. We brought these issues to the provider`s attention and they took immediate action. The decontamination process was subsequently updated to ensure that all instruments are individually pouched prior to sterilisation using a vacuum cycle.

Further improvements were required to ensure there were robust systems in place for the monitoring of the use of long-handled brushes and heavy-duty gloves, the practice avoided the use of wired brushes in line with current guidance and a clear dirty to clean flow was established to reduce the risk of cross‑contamination.

The practice stock control system required improvement to ensure that dental materials approaching or exceeding their expiry date were identified and disposed of promptly.

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 practice carried out infection prevention and control audits. However, these were completed annually rather than bi-annually as recommended in current guidance. In addition, the auditing process required improvement to ensure it effectively identified areas where infection prevention and control procedures were not in line with current guidance. Following the inspection, the provider told us that the infection prevention and control audit would be reviewed.

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