Dr Browns 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.

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.

Although staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety, processes to identify and manage risks needed strengthening.

Emergency drugs were not checked in accordance with national guidance and there were no checks of emergency equipment in place. This meant the provider had not identified missing and out-of-date items, which we highlighted. The provider sent us evidence these items had been ordered following the assessment.

We found multiple out of date materials in the surgery. The provider sent evidence they had implemented a log of expiry dates and had replaced some out-of-date materials following the inspection.

The premises were visibly clean, 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 had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. The clinician had not completed radiology and radiation protection training; however, they sent us evidence they had competed this immediately following the inspection.

The management of fire safety was not effective. An internal risk assessment had not been carried out since 2019 and we were not assured the assessor had the necessary skills, knowledge competency to carry out a comprehensive fire risk assessment. Staff had not completed fire training. The provider informed us they had scheduled an external risk assessment to be carried out in June 2025 and sent evidence staff had completed fire training following our inspection.

The practices systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines needed strengthening. We highlighted that improvements could be made to the tracking system used to reduce the risk of prescription theft or misuse. The provider assured us improvements would be made.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum 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.

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us there were always sufficient levels of staff on duty.

Although staff demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding, were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed and knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns within the practice and externally, they had not completed safeguarding training. The provider sent evidence they had completed the training following the inspection.

The practice did not have oversight processes to ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. We saw gaps in the completion of staff training.

We discussed the guidelines issued by the British Endodontic Society for the use of rubber dam for root canal treatment (A rubber dam is a thin sheet used to keep the tooth dry and clean during the procedure). Rubber dam sheets had passed their expiry date and were latex rather than non-latex. The provider sent evidence non latex rubber dam sheets had been ordered following the inspection.

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 1-to-1 meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff stated they 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.

We observed use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. We saw and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed.

The practice procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems were not in line with a risk assessment and current guidance. Staff were not taking and recording monthly water temperature checks. The provider sent us evidence a system has been put in place to address this following the inspection.

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 infection prevention and control audits were not completed 6 monthly in line with current guidance. The audit results did not reflect some of our findings on the day.

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