Chorleywood Dental Practice

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.

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 identified and managed most risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sharps safety and sepsis awareness.

Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. They felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and this was reflected in our findings.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. They knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

The premises were well maintained and the clinical areas were visibly clean and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) risk assessments and safety data sheets were available for staff.

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 most of the required radiation protection information was available. We saw that an electromechanical service of the X-ray units was carried out on 28 October 2025. However, the 3 yearly performance checks of the units were overdue. We discussed this with the provider who immediately booked an engineer to complete this check on 12 November 2025.

We do not assess compliance with the Ionising Radiation regulations 2017 and the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) regulations 2017 but we do request services to provide evidence that demonstrates their compliance to inform our findings.

A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements and the management of fire safety was mostly effective. Fire exits were clear and well signposted. We saw that fire-fighting equipment was regularly serviced and maintained, and fire evacuation drills were undertaken. Periodic in-house testing of the smoke alarms and emergency lighting was completed and recorded. Improvement could be made to ensure that the emergency lighting system was also serviced as recommended in their recent risk assessment. Immediately after the inspection the provider told us they had arranged for an engineer to complete this service.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable 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 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.

The practice ensured staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

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 annual appraisals, one-to-one meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

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 received appropriate training and 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.

Equipment was mostly maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions and that regular testing of the equipment was completed according to guidance. However, we were not provided with evidence to show that the ultrasonic bath had been serviced. Following our feedback the provider attempted to arrange for the servicing to be carried out, but were unable to find a company to undertake this. They provided us with evidence that because of this they had chosen to purchase a new ultrasonic bath.

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.