DK 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 not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The provider had made insufficient improvements to put right the shortfalls and had not responded to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 20 May 2025. We have told the provider to take action. We will be following up on our concerns to ensure the provider has made the required improvements. The impact of our concerns are not related to the safety of clinical care.

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.

At the inspection on 23 September 2025, we found that in the following areas the practice was not complying with the relevant regulation. In particular:

The practice had ineffective processes to identify and manage risks. A sharps risk assessment had been carried out but was not reflective of practice. For example, Safer sharps needles were referred to but were not in use in the practice. A Health and Safety risk assessment had been carried out but was not reflective of practice.

A fire risk assessment had been carried out since our previous inspection, but this was undertaken prior to the installation of the dental laboratory on the 2nd floor of the premises. The fire risk assessment was therefore not reflective of the current level of fire risks within the premises, nor could it identify any mitigating actions required to manage the level of risk.

The management of fire safety was ineffective. Records of periodic testing or checks of the smoke alarms, emergency lighting or fire extinguishers were not completed accurately. We did not see documentary evidence of the servicing of the emergency lighting and the practice did not conduct fire evacuation drills. In addition, the schedule of improvements issued by Dorset Wiltshire fire and rescue, following a safety audit, to be completed within 3 months of the date of the letter (22/07/2024) remained incomplete.

The patient accessible areas of the premises were visibly clean but the laboratory on the 2nd floor of the premises was cluttered and dirty, and combustible materials and hazardous substances were not stored safely, posing an increased risk of fire and harm. In addition, the flooring and worktop seals in surgery 1 were not intact, and cabinetry was chipped.

The electrical installation condition report (EICR) dated 09/05/2025 was unsatisfactory and noted 8 potentially dangerous points requiring urgent action. This had not been addressed following our previous inspection.

Arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment were not wholly effective. The required radiation protection information was available, however the local rules referred to exposures being too high and we did not see evidence that this had been addressed. In addition, we were unable to confirm that staff using the handheld X-ray machine were using personal dosimeters as recommended to check for safe levels of radiation exposure.

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.

Improvements were needed to the systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. The log in place to monitor and track the use of prescriptions evidenced that NHS prescriptions had continued to be used inappropriately following our previous inspection. After our follow up inspection the provider assured us that this has now been addressed.

However, we found the practice had made the following improvements.

Emergency equipment and medicines were all available and were checked in accordance with national guidance.

We saw satisfactory validation of equipment such as the autoclave and compressor in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

At the inspection on 23 September 2025, we found that in the following areas the practice was not complying with the relevant regulation. In particular:

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff. These reflected relevant legislation, and some improvements had been made to ensure these were followed. However, some information relevant to staff employment in their role as required under Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 was not always available. For example, satisfactory evidence of conduct in previous employment, and information about any physical or mental health conditions relevant to a person ability to perform tasks, was not seen for all employed staff. Newly appointed staff did not have an appropriate role-specific structured induction.

Although the practice ensured clinical staff were qualified and registered with the General Dental Council, we were not assured appropriate professional indemnity cover was in place for all staff.

We were unable to confirm that staff could demonstrate they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles as there were no clinical staff available on the day of the announced inspection.

However, we found the practice had made the following improvements.

Improvements had been made to the arrangements to ensure staff training, including continuing professional development (CPD), was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. A compliance package was in use to support this.

The processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities had been reviewed. and appraisals and 1 to 1 meetings had been implemented for staff to discuss their learning needs, general wellbeing, and aims for future professional development.

At the inspection on 23 September 2025, we found that in the following areas the practice was not complying with the relevant regulation. In particular:

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance, but these were not always being followed.

We were unable to see evidence to confirm staff had appropriate training or could demonstrate knowledge of infection prevention and control processes, including to confirm the decontamination of used dental instruments aligned with national guidance. This was because there were no clinical staff available to demonstrate the procedures on the day. In addition, some dental instruments, kept in the clinical areas, were not pouched.

The practice had ineffective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems. A risk assessment had been completed in line with current guidance, but the recommended control measures were not acted upon when temperature checks identified that hot water temperatures were not within the appropriate range to prevent the development of Legionella bacteria.

However, we found the practice had made the following improvements.

The tap on the handwashing sink and a light magnifier for inspecting instruments were both in working order. We saw that records of the checks of the equipment in use were being completed consistently.

The practice had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. Improvements had been made to the cleaning schedules to ensure the practice was kept clean.

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.