Dentata Charta

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 arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment, and the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

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

The practice had processes to identify and manage some risks. We identified minor shortfalls in relation to the management of risks associated with fire safety, servicing of equipment and medical emergency training.

The practice did not have an up-to-date Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) to ensure the electrical system and wiring in the building was safe. The previous EICR was completed in 2019; the practice told us that this had already been scheduled to be carried out in October and November 2025.

A fire risk assessment had been completed in 2024. Not all actions arising from this risk assessment had been planned or completed. Following this feedback, the practice told us that actions would be completed, and external companies had been booked in to carry out the recommendations. In-house testing of the fire alarms was not being consistently completed; the practice told us that a reminder was now set for these checks to be carried out.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of most equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. We saw that 2 dental compressors (machines that supply compressed air to power dental tools and equipment) had not been routinely serviced. The practice told us that servicing had been arranged.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. They knew how to respond to a medical emergency; however not all staff had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

Additionally, the practice did not have evidence that staff providing treatment to patients under sedation had completed immediate life support (ILS) training. Following the inspection, the provider gave assurance that sedation would not be undertaken until suitable ILS training had been completed.

The practice had a recruitment policy, however this was not made available until after the inspection. The practice procedures in place did not reflect relevant legislation as on the day of our inspection, we were not shown recruitment evidence when asked for all staff. Following this feedback, the practice told us that missing documentation had been obtained for the majority of staff. Improvements were needed to the oversight of staff recruitment.

The practice did not have oversight of clinical staff qualifications, General Dental Council registration or appropriate professional indemnity cover for all staff. Following this feedback, the practice told us that these had been obtained for the majority of staff members.

Newly appointed staff did not have a documented, appropriate role specific structured induction. The practice told us this will now be documented.

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.

Staff did not always demonstrate adequate knowledge of safeguarding. Staff told us about a safeguarding concern which we found was not appropriately managed. Multiple staff did not have up to date safeguarding training, including the safeguarding lead. Following the inspection, we were sent evidence that the safeguarding lead had completed appropriate training. The practice told us safeguarding training for all staff would be completed and retained in the future.

The practice did not have the oversight to ensure that staff training, including continuing professional development (CPD), was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

Staff 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 demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

Staff used personal protective equipment and decontaminated dental instruments after use, in line with national guidance. 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 and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste.

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.