ESTE DENT 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.

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breach we found at our inspection on 25 June 2026.

Although there are issues to be addressed, the impact of our concerns relates to the governance and the oversight of the risks, rather than a patient safety risk.

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.

At the inspection on 3 September 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulation.

The practice had made improvements to processes for identifying and managing risks effectively including sharps safety and sepsis awareness.

A new, detailed sharps risk assessment had been printed although not yet completed. Formal arrangements had been put in place for occupation health cover to ensure staff could be assessed and treated promptly in the event of a sharps injury. Staff demonstrated a new safety device for dismantling needles safely.

Staff had completed training on sepsis and reported feeling confident in identifying the typical symptoms. Information about sepsis was placed around the practice for staff and patients.

The previous health and safety risk assessment did not adequately address the specific risks associated with the dental practice, its equipment, and clinical activities, instead focusing predominantly on risks relating to the building in which the practice was situated. A new risk assessment specific to the practice had been printed but not yet completed.

Medical emergency medicines and equipment were available in accordance with the Resuscitation Council (UK) guidance. In the days following the previous inspection, the provider had purchased a new kit with all the required medicines and equipment which was checked in line with national guidance.

Staff had completed in-person basic life support training and reported feeling confident in responding to a medical emergency. The provider told us they would ensure annual training is completed by all staff going forward.

Improvements had been made to governance systems to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health. Staff were in the process of ensuring safety data sheets and risk assessments were available for each hazardous substance used in the practice.

Improvements had been made to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the provider had registered with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in accordance with the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 (IRR17) requirements.

Fire safety was managed by the building’s management team. Improvements had been made to oversight of internal checks and the provider had copies of recent fire alarm tests. However, improvements were still required to oversight of internal fire extinguisher and emergency lighting checks. The provider was unable to tell us how often they were checked and had not requested copies of these logs.

We did not see any evidence of fire drills carried out since our last inspection where we saw records for 2022 and 2025; however, it was unclear whether staff at the dental practice took part in these drills. The fire risk assessment dated November 2025 highlighted the need to increase the frequency of fire drills in the action plan.

The provider had still not secured Employers' Liability Insurance at the time of the inspection.

Improvements had been made to the recruitment process. Existing staff had all the required documents on file that were previously missing. The provider had conducted Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS) checks and Right to Work checks for all staff.

The provider ensured clinical staff were appropriately qualified and registered with the General Dental Council and the provider was able to demonstrate that adequate indemnity arrangements were now in place for all registered dental professionals.

Staff had updated their knowledge of safeguarding, in particular, the types of abuse and signs and symptoms of abuse since the last inspection. Staff knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns within the practice, and knowledge of how to escalate externally had improved. Safeguarding scenarios were discussed as a team and documented.

The provider had oversight of staff training, including continuing professional development. Training was up-to-date and the provider told us that they would review it at the required intervals going forward. Since the previous inspection, staff had completed mandatory training in topics such as learning disability and autism awareness training.

The provider told us they would implement formal processes for staff to discuss their learning needs and aims for future professional development such as annual appraisals.

Improvements had been made to the availability of required personal protective equipment for decontaminating dental instruments. There were heavy-duty gloves to protect staff from a sharps injury whilst manually scrubbing instruments and the practice stocked aprons to be worn during the decontamination process.

The provider had purchased additional cleaning mops ensuring different mops were used in clinical and non-clinical areas in line with Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices guidance.

Improvements had been made to the storage of clinical waste and bins were locked and tethered.

The practice had some effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment and current guidance. However, concerns were identified during the inspection around the provider’s oversight of water temperature monitoring. The provider did not routinely get copies of temperature testing from the building’s management team who conducted and documented the tests. We reviewed recent logs which showed that for the last 3 months, temperatures were below 55 degrees Celsius threshold as required by the risk assessment. We discussed this with the provider who assured us they will address this.

The practice had completed a new infection prevention and control audit in line with current guidance. Improvements had been made to the audit template to address the limitations identified in the previous audit and ensure that future audits are effective and fit for purpose.

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