Westgate Dental Clinic Limited Winchester

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 risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sharps safety, sepsis awareness and lone working.

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 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 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. However, the X-ray units had not had annual electromechanical servicing. Following the inspection, we received evidence that this had been carried out. 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.

Overall, the practice managed fire safety well, and fire exits were clear and well signposted. However, the fire alarm was being tested monthly not weekly and although a service had been completed in February, prior to this it had not been serviced at 6 monthly intervals. In addition, the emergency lighting servicing was overdue. Following the inspection, we received evidence confirming the emergency lighting service had been completed.

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

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff. Improvements were underway to ensure accurate, complete and detailed records are maintained for all staff. However, newly appointed staff did not always have an appropriate role specific structured induction, and evidence of conduct in previous employment was not always obtained in line with requirements.

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. However, not all staff had completed training in Safeguarding adults and children at an appropriate level for their role.

The practice did not always ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. The practice should ensure protocols and procedures are reviewed to ensure staff are up to date with their mandatory training and their continuing professional development and take appropriate action quickly when training requirements are not being met.

The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover.

There were effective processes to support staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals and ongoing informal discussions.

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

The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems. However, an up-to-date risk assessment, completed in line with current guidance, was not available. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that the associated risks had been fully assessed or that the control measures in place were appropriate and effective.

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

Equipment was maintained and serviced in line with 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.