Newport Dental and Oral Health Studio

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 the provider has made the required improvements.

During our inspection of this key question, we found concerns related to

the safety of the premises, control of Legionella and adequacy and availability of emergency equipment and medicines, at the practice.

These concerns were in 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 detailed findings below.

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 did not have systems or processes in place to identify and mitigate risks relating to fire safety, the management of Legionella and other harmful bacteria in water systems, the control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH), and general health and safety within the workplace. Following notification of the inspection, the provider took action to address these shortfalls and employed a dental compliance company to carry out on-site risk assessments, which identified several areas requiring improvement and corrective action.

On the day of inspection, we found that emergency equipment and medicines had not been checked in line with national guidance. This was evident because the medical oxygen cylinder had expired in 2016 and oromucosal midazolam was unavailable. In addition, the automated external defibrillator (AED) was not in good working condition.

The compliance company employed by the provider had introduced processes intended to ensure that emergency medicines and equipment were checked in line with guidance. During the inspection, we saw that the provider had obtained a replacement AED. Following the inspection, the provider sent evidence confirming that replacement medical oxygen and oromucosal midazolam had been obtained.

Staff completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support in the week prior to our inspection. However, there was no evidence available to demonstrate that this training had been undertaken on an annual basis, in line with the recommendations of the Resuscitation Council UK.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. However, in line with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH), risk assessments were only available for some dental materials used within the practice. Substances including the management of bodily fluids had not been risk assessed, and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) were not available for all hazardous substances.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of some equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. However, the air receiver (compressor) had not been inspected in accordance with a Written Scheme of Examination, as required under the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000. In mitigation, records confirmed that the compressor had undergone servicing in 2025. However, routine servicing does not replace the requirement for formal examinations under a Written Scheme and therefore does not fully mitigate the risk.

Following the intervention of the compliance company the practice implemented arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was made available. However, there was no evidence to demonstrate that appropriate safety measures had been in place prior to the announcement of the inspection. This indicates that required controls were not fully established or embedded prior to the inspection.

On the day of inspection, an engineer attended to carry out electro‑mechanical servicing, typically undertaken on an annual basis, and a routine performance test, usually completed at three‑yearly intervals. The provider confirmed that these had not been completed since the installation of the equipment in 2012.

A Radiation Protection Advisor (RPA) had been engaged and registration with the Health and Safety Executive for the working with radiation generators was completed shortly prior to inspection. Without a continuously appointed Radiation Protection Advisor (RPA), the practice lacked expert advice to ensure that radiation risks were identified, consistently controlled and effectively managed.

The newly written Local Rules which outline safe working practices indicated that the entire dental treatment room was designated as the controlled area. However, staff told us that the dentist and dental nurse remained within the controlled area when the X-ray unit was activated. There was no evidence that consideration had been given to the need for personal radiation monitoring (dosimetry), nor had the RPA been consulted in relation to these working arrangements.

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 management of fire safety was ineffective. A fire risk assessment dated 5 May 2025 was carried out by the dental compliance company, but they advised they did not have the required competence to undertake this assessment. The assessment identified several concerns, including that the emergency lighting had not been tested or maintained, fire safety checks were not carried out, the fire- fighting equipment (extinguishers) were overdue for servicing and were not wall mounted. In addition, fire safety awareness training had not been carried out by staff, nor were evacuation drills carried out.

In mitigation, new fire extinguishers had been installed, and the landlord provided some evidence that the premises had undergone a gas safety check and a recent fixed wiring electrical survey. Fire exits were clear and well signposted. Following our feedback, the provider arranged for a fire risk assessment to be completed on 26 May 2026, and a logbook was purchased to support the recording of fire safety checks going forward.

The practice did not have effective systems for monitoring the management of medicines. The service did not maintain a log of antimicrobial prescriptions. The principal dentist did not have access to current antimicrobial prescribing guidance to ensure appropriate prescribing.

The practice did not have effective recruitment procedures in place to help them employ suitable staff. The policy was not consistently followed. In particular, there was no evidence that the dental nurse had undergone a Disclosure and Barring check (DBS) at, or prior to, the commencement of their employment in 2021. There was also no available evidence to demonstrate that the clinical members of staff were immune to Hepatitis B. Following the announcement of the inspection, action had been taken to address these concerns. A DBS check had been initiated, and a blood test to assess the dental nurse’s response to the Hepatitis B vaccination had been arranged.

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

Induction records were not available for newly appointed members of staff.

Evidence of role-specific training or continuous professional development was not available for all members of staff. Missing training certificates included but were not limited to fire safety awareness, autism and learning disability awareness, mental capacity and Legionella awareness.

In addition, there was no evidence to demonstrate that the principal dentist had completed training in Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) at a level appropriate to their role. Level 1 CBCT training is required for clinicians who refer patients for CBCT imaging. Following our feedback, the principal undertook the required Level 1 training.

Overall, we found that the practice did not have effective systems in place to support staff training and development. We were assured, however, that there were enough staff on duty at all times. Staff 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.

There were no formal systems in place to ensure staff received regular appraisals of their performance in their role to identify any training, learning and development needs.

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

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance.

Staff 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.

Improvements were required to the procedures in place to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other harmful bacteria, developing in the water systems. A Legionella risk assessment document was made available for our review; however, as this had been completed by the compliance company, we were not assured this had been completed by a person with the necessary training and competence. The assessment also lacked sufficient detail, as it did not fully consider the design, condition, or configuration of the water systems within the premises. The risk assessment identified that infrequently used outlets were not flushed to prevent water stagnation and hot water outlets were not reaching the required temperature of 55 degrees Celsius to reduce the risk of bacterial proliferation. Furthermore, water temperatures were not monitored or recorded on a monthly basis. In mitigation, prior to our inspection, water quality testing took place, and results demonstrated that the water quality was satisfactory. Additionally, the provider had arranged for a comprehensive Legionella risk assessment by a suitably competent professional to be completed on 26 May 2026.

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

Decontamination equipment was maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions.

The practice had not completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance. Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 Decontamination in primary care practices (HTM 01-05) published by the Department of Health states that practices should audit their decontamination processes every 6 months. The absence of regular audits may limit the practice’s ability to identify and address any deficiencies in infection prevention and control procedures.

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