Sleep Lane Smiles

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

Checks of emergency equipment and medicines did not follow national guidance to ensure availability and suitability for use.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and all but 2 had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter.

The practice had not carried out risk assessments in relation to the safe storage and handling of every substance hazardous to health that was in use by staff.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment, and the required radiation protection information was available.

Records of servicing, in line with manufacturer’s instructions, was available for most of the equipment used at the practice but improvement was needed to ensure that servicing records for the x-ray machines was available.

The practice’s fire safety management procedures did not reflect current published guidance.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines but improvement was needed to ensure that national guidelines were followed when prescribing medicines.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation. However, these were not consistently followed and oversight of recruitment checks required improvement.

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.

The practice should take action to ensure that all clinical staff have adequate immunity for vaccine preventable infectious diseases and safety measures are in place for staff that had not yet received their full course of Hepatitis B vaccinations.

Staff told us that there were enough staff on duty at all times.

Staff 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.

Training was not monitored 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 well-being and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice.

The practice’s infection control procedures reflected current published guidance, but improvement was needed.

Staff decontaminated dental instruments after use, in line with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single-use items were not reprocessed.

Not all staff used the appropriate personal protective footwear when working in clinical areas.

The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems. Improvement was needed to ensure the Legionella risk assessment and action plan activities corresponded with each other.

The hot water temperature test log showed that the hot water did not meet the required temperature. We did not see evidence of action taken as a result.

The practice had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste, but external storage security arrangements required improvement.

The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance.

The latest audit indicated the practice was meeting the required standards. However, we found that audit findings were inaccurate. Tears on the treatment room seating was not identified as a shortfall.

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