• Dentist
  • Dentist

Mr. Nigel Monkman Also known as Nigel Monkmans Dental Practice

1 Barnes Court, 66-72 Station Road, New Barnet, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 1QY (020) 8447 0707

Provided and run by:
Mr Nigel Monkman

Important:

We served warning notices on Mr Nigel Monkman on 4 February 2026 for failing to meet the regulations related to safe care and treatment, staffing, fit and proper persons employed and good governance at Mr. Nigel Monkman.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

We carried out this announced on-site inspection on 27 January 2026.

We found the practice had not met all regulations.

The practice infection control procedures did not reflect published guidance.

The practice did not have systems to identify, assess, and manage risks to patients and staff.

The practice recruitment procedures did not reflect current legislation.

There was a lack effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement.

Staff knew how to deal with medical emergencies. However, not all medical emergency medicines were available in line with relevant guidance.

Staff provided care and treatment in line with current guidance. However, improvements were required to ensure that treatment provided to patients was adequately documented in the patient care records.

Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and ensured access to care, support, and treatment when required.

The practice is in the London Borough of Barnet and provides private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

There was a staircase at the entrance, which meant the practice was not accessible to wheelchair users. Patients were informed of this when contacting the practice and were signposted to a nearby practice that was accessible to wheelchair users. Off-street parking and public transport services were available near the practice.

The practice had 2 treatment rooms. At the time of our inspection, there was a total of 7 staff, of which there were 1 dentist, 4 dental nurses and 2 dental hygienists. We gathered feedback from staff and spoke to a range of staff during our inspection, including the principal dentist and 2 dental nurses, one of whom was working at the practice on a temporary basis.

The provider was not complying with regulations 12 (Safe care and treatment), 17 (Good governance, 18 (staffing) and 19 (Fit and proper persons employed) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Full details of the regulations the provider was not meeting are within the inspection report.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

15 July 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we inspected on 27 February 2014, the provider did not have a system in place for routine staff supervision and appraisal. This meant that it was failing to comply with the requirements of regulation 23 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (HSCA). At this inspection, we noted that staff supervision and appraisal meetings had recently taken place and judged that the action taken was sufficient to comply with the requirements of the regulation.

When we inspected in February 2014, the provider did not have routine systems in place for gathering patients' views about the service offered. This meant that the provider was failing to comply with the requirements of regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (HSCA). At this inspection, we saw that a patient survey and had taken place and the provider was able to evidence improvements made to the service based upon the feedback. We judged that the action taken was sufficient to comply with the requirements of the regulation.

27 February 2014

During a routine inspection

Patients we spoke with were complimentary about the service. One said "Mr Monkman runs a family oriented practice for the local community. I would travel here even if we moved." Medical histories were regularly taken to identify and minimise any potential risks to patients. There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Drugs and equipment recommended by the Resuscitation Council UK (RCUK) were almost all in place and staff regularly undertook basic life support training.

The practice had systems to reduce the risk and spread of infection. There were plans in place to ensure the premises had a separate decontamination room .

Although staff had received training to enhance their knowledge and skill, some areas were completed regularly . Expected supervisions and appraisals did not occur. The practice did not have systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. This included gathering patients' views. Whilst patients we spoke with on the day of the inspection told us they were happy with the service, a lack of a systematic approach to quality monitoring meant that patients could not be sure of the effectiveness of the provider's quality measures.