EvoDental Liverpool Clinic

Updated 8 April 2025

We carried out this announced on-site inspection on 2nd September 2025.

We found the practice had met regulations.

The practice had effective systems to identify and manage risks, including infection prevention and control.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

Recruitment procedures reflected current legislation and there was effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement.

Staff provided care and treatment in line with current guidance. They treated patients with dignity and respect and ensured access to care, support, and treatment when required.

Evo Dental Liverpool Clinic is part of Evo Dental Centre Limited, a dental group provider. The practice is in Huyton, Merseyside and provides private dental care and treatment for adults. The practice is a specialist centre providing patients with full arch dental implants.

There was step-free access to the practice and car parking spaces available, including dedicated parking for disabled people, near the practice.

The practice had 3 treatment rooms. At the time of our inspection, there was a total of 25 staff, of which there were 2 Head of Clinical Operations, 6 specialist implant dentists, 9 dental nurses, 1 decontamination assistant, a group patient co-ordinator, 2 patient co-ordinators, 2 receptionists, a group administrator and the business / practice manager. We gathered feedback from staff and spoke to a range of staff during our inspection, including 2 dentists, 2 dental nurses, a receptionist and the business / practice manager (referred to as the practice manager in this report).

Updated 8 April 2025

Two weeks before our inspection, we asked the practice to encourage patients to share their views of the service with us. On the day of our inspection, we reviewed patient feedback from a number of sources, including on-line feedback. Patient feedback provided a positive view of the dental team and care provided by the practice.

Patients commented positively about the standards of cleanliness, care and treatment they received. Patients particularly commented that they felt they were very well supported through the process of having implant work done, and that at all stages they had good access to their clinicians if they had concerns or needed re-assurance.

Patients commented that they were given clear information to help them make an informed choice about their treatment and the associated costs. They were involved in decisions about their care. When they were prescribed medicines, sufficient information was given.

The practice shared patient feedback with the team. We were told this was reviewed and where suggestions had been made, appropriate action would be taken.