MA Surgeries Ltd

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 not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations. We will be following up on our concerns to ensure they have been put right by the provider.

The impact of our concerns, in terms of the safety of clinical care, is minor for patients using the service. Once the shortcomings have been put right the likelihood of them occurring in the future is low.

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns related to the management of medical emergencies, recruitment and training of staff, sharps safety and infection prevention and control standards being followed at the practice.

This resulted in a breach of Regulation 12 Safe Care and Treatment of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below.

Whilst 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 had processes to identify and manage risks, but immediate improvement was needed.

Staff told us they knew how to respond to a medical emergency but none of the 5 staff had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support in the previous 12 months.

Checks of emergency equipment and medicines did not follow national guidance to ensure availability and suitability for use.

The practice had not carried out risk assessments in relation to the safe storage and handling of every substance hazardous to health that was in use by staff.

The practice did not ensure equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions.

The practice could demonstrate that the X-ray machines were used safely.

The provider did not have effective fire safety management procedures.

The practice did not have an adequate stock control system of prescriptions.

The practice had not implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. In particular, the management of sharps and sepsis awareness.

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

The practice carried out a structured induction for every newly appointed member of staff.

The practice ensured that all clinical staff had adequate immunity for vaccine preventable infectious diseases.

Staff demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. They knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns within the practice and externally.

Recruitment checks had not been carried out, in accordance with relevant legislation to help them employ suitable staff.

Not all the staff could demonstrate that they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

Training was not monitored to ensure staff were up to date with their mandatory training and their continuing professional development (CPD).

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

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

Improvement was needed to ensure that infection control procedures reflected published guidance.

Not all relevant staff received appropriate training or demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

The decontamination of instruments was not carried out in accordance with The Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices (HTM 01-05) guidance.

The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions.

The practice had not carried out infection prevention and control audits six-monthly following current guidance and legislation.

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