Dr Michael White - Lindfield

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. Where we found concerns relating to safe and effective staffing and safe environments, these were addressed immediately following feedback from the inspection team.

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 processes to identify and manage risks and staff we spoke with were able to describe these to us. Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. Staff felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and overall, this was reflected in our findings.

Fire exits were clear and well signposted although we found the management of fire safety was not wholly effective. For example, not all staff had completed fire safety training and records showed testing of the emergency lighting, fire alarms and fire extinguisher checks were inconsistent. In addition, there were no records to show that fire evacuation drills were being carried out. Following our inspection, the provider submitted evidence that all staff had taken part in a fire drill and fire safety training had been arranged. Furthermore, a new fire risk assessment had been completed with systems put in place to ensure fire equipment was checked at the required intervals.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available, and staff could access these in a timely way. Improvements were required to ensure that the emergency kit included all equipment necessary, as advised in guidance from the Resuscitation Council UK. We found some face masks for the Ambu bag were missing and there were no paediatric pads for the Automated External Defibrillator (AED). The eye wash kit had also passed its expiry date. We brought this to the provider’s attention, and they ordered these items immediately following our inspection.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. Following our inspection feedback, the provider confirmed that medical emergency scenario training would be included in staff practice meetings every month.

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

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. However, we saw that the intraoral radiography unit had not been serviced since November 2022 and the rectangular collimator was not in use. In response to our inspection feedback the provider took immediate action and arranged for the unit to be serviced and the rectangular collimator to be fitted. 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.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines.

The service had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff. Agency or locum staff were rarely used. However, we saw that recruitment procedures did not always demonstrate that the policy was being followed. There were no recruitment records for one staff member and no information about any physical or mental health conditions for the staff team. We saw all other required recruitment checks had been completed. Following our inspection, the provider submitted evidence that the missing information had been obtained and assured us that recruitment practices would be updated.

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 that there were sufficient levels of 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 had arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. However, on the day of inspection, the provider was unable to evidence some of the mandatory training for all staff members. Following the inspection, the provider submitted evidence that the required training had been completed or booked for both clinical and non-clinical staff where needed.

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, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff told us 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.

We saw the practice was visibly clean throughout although there were no cleaning checklists for environmental cleaning, which can aid with auditing the effectiveness of cleaning processes. Following our inspection, the provider submitted evidence that a more detailed cleaning schedule had been put in place.

Staff demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. Infection prevention and control audits were completed in line with current guidance.

The practice’s procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria developing in water systems were not wholly effective. Although a Legionella risk assessment dated October 2024 was available, we saw there were no records of checks to confirm that hot and cold water temperatures were reaching the required parameters. In response to our inspection feedback the provider sent evidence that a monthly water management log had been put in place and commenced.

The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions aside from the ultrasonic cleaner which we saw had not been serviced within the last 12 months. Following our inspection, the provider submitted evidence that the practice had purchased a new ultrasonic cleaner and arranged for the existing one to be serviced. The practice carried out automatic control tests and cleaning efficacy tests on the ultrasonic cleaner. In response to inspection feedback, the practice took immediate action and implemented the use of protein residue tests in accordance with guidance issued in Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: decontamination in primary care dental practices.

We observed that use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments broadly aligned with national guidance.

We saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed.

The practice had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste.

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