Blueberry Dental Surgery Limited

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.

The practice had processes to identify and manage risks, but improvement was needed to ensure processes were effective.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

Staff providing treatment to patients under sedation had not completed immediate life support training (or basic life support training plus airway management).

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 most 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. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Improvement was needed to ensure that fire safety management procedures were effective.

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

The practice had not implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. In particular, the management of sharps.

A lone worker risk assessment was not available for the external out of hours cleaner.

Whilst these issues were present, our concerns related to lack of governance and risk oversight, rather than immediate patient and staff safety.

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.

Recruitment checks had not been carried out, in accordance with relevant legislation to help them employ suitable staff.

Clinical staff were qualified and registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover, however this was not always checked at the recruitment stage.

The practice could not demonstrate that every new member of staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction.

Training was not monitored effectively to ensure staff were up to date with their mandatory training and their continuing professional development (CPD).

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, team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued, and the practice was a good place to work.

Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

Staff used personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance, but improvement was needed to ensure processes were followed.

The practice could not demonstrate that effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment and current guidance were in place.

The practice did not have protocols in place to ensure effective environmental cleaning was in place.

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

The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions.

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.