Dr Larmoyer's 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.

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 and sepsis awareness.

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. Staff also participated in medical emergency scenario training.

Inhalation sedation was provided to children by a dentist who was on maternity leave at the time of our inspection. The inspection team were told that paediatric immediate life support training would be completed by the sedation team on their return.

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 most equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. Servicing of the equipment used to administer the medical gases used for inhalation sedation had been scheduled for 8 May 2026, prior to the associate dentist returning to work and before inhalation sedation would be offered to patients.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment, but not all the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Following feedback from the inspection team, the practice ensured that a radiation risk assessment was completed with consultation from their Radiation Protection Advisor (RPA). 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.

The practice appointed a Laser Protection Advisor and ensured that local rules were made available for the use of a laser within the practice following feedback from the inspection team.

The landlord of the building was responsible for the management of fire safety in the communal areas. Fire exits were clear and well signposted. Improvements were required to ensure that the practice held records of servicing and in-house checks of the fire safety equipment, to ensure they were in good working order. Although the building management carried out yearly fire drills, improvements were required to ensure the practice conducted their own fire drills, taking into account the safe evacuation of patients who may be receiving sedation at the time of an emergency.

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.

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.

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.

The practice ensured staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

There were effective 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 annual appraisals and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice. One staff member told us, “It is a family run business, where I feel comfortable to be, and listened to. Everyone cares for one another.”

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

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.