U Smile Dental Practice

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.

Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. They felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, however this was not always reflected in our findings.

The practice had some systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. However, these were not always effective. For example, risk assessments were not reviewed regularly and had not identified all risks to staff, such as the hygienist working without chairside support, the risks associated with sepsis and that clinicians should manage used sharps. Immediately following the inspection, the provider displayed information to raise awareness of the risks associated with sepsis for patients and staff. They also completed a risk assessment for the hygienist and identified the need for a means for the hygienist to raise the alarm.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support. However, on the day of the inspection not all emergency equipment and medicines recommended by the UK Resuscitation Council guidance were available and in date and the checks of medicines and equipment undertaken were not effective. Eyewash was also not present. Immediately after the inspection we saw that the provider had ordered most of the missing items.

In addition, Glucagon (a medicine used to manage low blood sugar) was stored in a fridge but staff did not monitor the temperature of the fridge to ensure the medicine was stored at the manufacturer’s recommended temperature.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled, and the provider had completed Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) risk assessments for dental and cleaning products. Improvement was required to ensure that staff had access to safety data sheets for these products and that the cupboard where they were stored was kept locked. Immediately after the inspection the provider purchased a padlock for the cupboard where COSHH materials were stored.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of most equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

The X-ray equipment was last serviced on 25 November 2025. However, on the day of the inspection not all of the required radiation protection information was available. In particular, registration with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for the use of ionising radiation was not renewed and the local rules had not been updated. We were not provided with evidence that the practice had a contract to obtain radiation protection advice, and the 3-yearly performance check was due in 2023. After our feedback the provider sent evidence that these shortfalls were being rectified.

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.

A fire risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. We saw that firefighting equipment, emergency lighting and smoke alarms systems were serviced and that periodic in-house testing was completed. Improvements could be made to complete the testing of smoke alarms weekly rather than monthly and to record fire evacuation drills.

Staff had not completed any formal training in fire safety awareness. However, immediately after the inspection we were provided with evidence the dentist and dental nurse had completed fire marshal training and that further fire training had been booked.

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

The practice recruitment policy and procedures did not fully reflect relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff. Improvement was needed to ensure the provider checked all information required in respect of persons employed or appointed for the purposes of a regulated activity as set out in Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

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 provider did not have effective oversight of staff training and there were no systems to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. We noted some members of staff had not completed training in safeguarding for children and vulnerable adults, autism and learning disability awareness, fire safety, legionella or sepsis awareness.

The dentist demonstrated knowledge and had completed appropriate training in safeguarding for children and vulnerable adults. However, up-to-date contact details for local safeguarding services were not available in the practice to enable staff to escalate safeguarding concerns promptly.

There were some processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during appraisals, one-to-one meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

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

Comments included, “The staff are very friendly, cooperative and respectful. I feel valued and supported within the team.”

Another told us, “This is a nice place to work. The team are supportive and professional. I feel encouraged to learn and grow my role every day.”

Infection prevention and control procedures were not fully in-line with published guidance. In particular we saw unpouched and out of date instruments being stored a surgery. These were removed following our feedback.

Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated some knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

Staff used personal protective equipment and decontaminated dental instruments after use although some improvements were required to ensure these processes were fully in line with national guidance. These shortfalls were addressed immediately after the inspection. The provider implemented processes to record the testing of the temperature of the solution used for manual cleaning and implemented logs to record periodic changing of the heavy-duty gloves and the scrubbing brush.

We saw, and staff confirmed that single-use items were not reprocessed.

The practice had effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment and current guidance.

We saw that the practice appeared clean and that equipment for environmental cleaning was segregated although improvement was needed to ensure it was stored securely and that effective cleaning schedules were in place.

The practice had procedures in place to ensure clinical waste was segregated and disposed of safely in line with guidance. Improvement was required to ensure that the container used to store clinical waste was locked and secured to a fixed structure. These shortfalls were immediately rectified by the provider.

Equipment was mostly maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions. However, we saw that the ultrasonic bath had not been serviced and that not all tests used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the process recommended by guidance were being completed.

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.