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 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.

At the inspection on 30 September 2026, we found the following:

The provider had made improvements to the safeguarding processes in place and staff were aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.

The provider had implemented a new safeguarding policy and local arrangements and contacts for safeguarding were available around the practice.

Staff had now completed safeguarding training to the appropriate level for their role.

Staff knew how to identify adults and children at risk of significant harm and knew how to make a safeguarding referral or who to inform if they had concerns.

The judgement for Involving people to manage risks is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

At the inspection on 30 September 2026, we found the following:

The practice had effective systems to identify and manage risks. In particular, the risks associated with fire safety, health and safety, stock control, hazardous substances, and staff recruitment.

The practice had improved systems to manage fire safety. The provider had installed a new fire detection and emergency lighting system and was carrying out relevant in-house testing of the fire alarm and emergency lighting.

The premises had undergone a new fire risk assessment in July 2026. The provider had already actioned most recommendations and were continuing to work through the remaining recommendations.

Staff had completed their mandatory periodic fire safety awareness training.

The governance and oversight of systems to manage fire safety were effective and embedded.

Improvements had been made to the oversight of hazardous substances. The practice had made a start on updating their control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) risk assessments and most COSHH assessments were supported by relevant safety data sheets. The practice assured us they would continue to review and update the COSHH risk assessments.

Improvements had been made to ensure sepsis triage prompts, an eyewash kit and a bodily fluid spillage kit were available for staff.

NHS prescription pads were kept securely and there was a log in place to monitor and track their use.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. The practice was registered with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for the operation of X-ray devices.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of most equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. We noted there was no evidence the compressor had undergone its pressure vessel inspection (PVI). We discussed this with staff and were assured this would be addressed.

At the inspection on 30 September 2026, we found the following:

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation to help them employ suitable staff. We were unable to check if these were now consistently followed due to no new recruitment since the previous inspection. We were assured the provider would follow these procedures for any future recruitment.

We noted improvements had been made to ensure all staff had appropriate professional indemnity cover.

We noted some improvements had been made to ensure most clinical staff had appropriate immunity to vaccine-preventable blood-borne viruses. However, we noted Hepatitis B immunity levels had still not been obtained for 1 staff member. The practice acted immediately and sent evidence of a risk assessment whilst they sourced immunity levels.

Improvements had been made to the oversight of staff training and continuing professional development.

At the inspection on 30 September 2026, we found the following:

Improvements had been implemented to the oversight and governance of infection control. The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance and this was reflected in our findings. We found no evidence single-use items had been reprocessed, instruments were visibly clean and pouched in line with national guidance.

Improvements had been made to the systems for stock control. In particular, we found no evidence of out-of-date products and materials.

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. Legionella training for the Legionella lead as outlined in the Legionella risk assessment had been completed.

We were unable to check if improvements had been made to the infection prevention and control audits as these were not due to be completed since the last inspection.

We noted the autoclave had undergone its annual validation. However, there was no evidence it had undergone a service and pressure vessel inspection. We discussed this with staff and were assured this would be addressed.

We noted the practice had purchased an ultrasonic bath. We highlighted they had not begun the routine testing in line with national guidance. We discussed this with staff and were assured this would be addressed.

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