Histon Dental Clinic

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.

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.

The practice identified and managed some risks effectively and staff described the processes. Improvements should be made to the practice’s sharps safety to ensure compliance with Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013, in particular relating to the use of safer sharps.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. We saw that the practice did not have adrenaline (a medicine used to treat serious anaphylaxis) for use in children.

Staff 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. Whilst we saw that safety data sheets and risk assessments were available for hazardous substances, these were not in a readily accessible format. The practice told us this will be improved to ensure this information was readily accessible.

We saw records of servicing and validation of some equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. We saw that whilst the compressor (a machine designed to provide compressed air to power dental instruments) had been serviced, there was no associated Pressure Vessel Inspection (PVI) certification.

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

We saw that a fire risk assessment had been completed on 27 January 2026, which identified medium and low risk actions, some of which were still awaiting completion. We saw that the practice was not documenting regular in-house checks of smoke alarms or emergency torches, and no staff had received fire safety training. Following this feedback, we saw that one staff member completed fire marshal education training.
 

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation; however, improvements were required to ensure these were followed when recruiting staff. We saw that multiple staff members did not have identification checks, evidence of adequate immunity to hepatitis B, evidence of conduct in previous employment or evidence of indemnity insurance. Following this feedback, the practice told us these will be obtained.

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.

Whilst we saw that staff were up to date with most of their training and continuing professional development (CPD), we saw that the practice did not have oversight of this.

Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing 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 had infection control procedures that generally reflected published guidance.

Staff demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. However, not all staff had received appropriate and up to date training.

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 recently had a risk assessment carried out to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems. This highlighted multiple medium and low risk actions, some of which were in the process of being completed, yet some remained outstanding. The practice should take action to implement any recommendations in the practice's Legionella risk assessment, taking into account the guidelines issued by the Department of Health in the Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices, and having regard to The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice about the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.’

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

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.