Steyning Dental Care Limited Also known as South Cliff Dental Group Steyning

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 risks well, however improvements are required to ensure these are managed appropriately.

Staff advised us that they occasionally worked alone when the practice was closed and they were unaware of the lone working risk assessment or policy. In addition, the sharps risk assessment did not reflect the processes employed at the practice. The risk assessment referred to the use of safety needles and safer re-sheathing devices. However, these were not available on-site.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. However, we noted there was insufficient emergency oxygen within the practice. We were later sent evidence that additional emergency oxygen had been ordered and had arrived before any further sedation treatments were carried out.

On the day of inspection there was no evidence staff in the sedation team had completed immediate life support (ILS) training. ILS training is a requirement for members of staff involved in the provision of sedation. After the inspection we were sent evidence that the clinicians providing sedation had completed this training, however, no other sedation team members had. We were later sent evidence the required ILS training had been completed (for the remaining team members) after the inspection and before any further sedation treatments were carried out.

The premises were visibly clean and free from clutter.

The practice held information in relation to the safe handling of hazardous substances. However, this had not been reviewed and staff were not aware of the importance of this information. In addition, we noted a substance had been decanted into a bottle which was labelled incorrectly.

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

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

The practice managed fire safety well, and fire exits were clear and well signposted. However, arrangements were not in place for the emergency evacuation of a patient who was sedated. We discussed this with staff and were assured it would be addressed and rectified.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely and a log was in place to monitor and track their use.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff.

The practice generally ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with their professional regulatory body and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. However, on the day of inspection not all evidence was readily available. Following the inspection the documentation was sent to us.

Newly appointed staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction.

Staff told us that they felt respected, supported and valued by staff within the practice and they were proud to work there.

Staff told us that there were generally 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. However, the service relied heavily on trainee dental nurses, and at the time of the inspection there was a lack of appropriate staff to provide appropriate supervision. We discussed the risk of this with staff and we were assured it would be addressed and rectified.

Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

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 used in the decontamination and sterilisation of instruments was maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions.

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