Implant and Aesthetic Center Limited

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 21 January 2026. We have told the provider to take action. We will follow up on our concerns to ensure the provider has made the required improvements.

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.

At the inspection on 21 January 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulations:

The provider had made improvements to the practice’s safeguarding processes.

Staff had access to information to enable them to refer a safeguarding incident or concern to the appropriate external agencies. The safeguarding lead was the registered manager, who was not routinely on site, only attending once a month on average. Staff had completed internal safeguarding training within a practice meeting. The training highlighted that safeguarding was the responsibility of all staff, and empowered staff to feel comfortable to recognise and escalate any potential safeguarding concerns individually.

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 19 March 2026, the inspection team recognised that the practice had addressed many of the concerns found during our last inspection, but further improvements were required to ensure full compliance with the regulations.

While emergency equipment and medicines were now stored in a central area and easily accessible, in-house checks of the kit had failed to recognise that there was no oxygen tubing or oxygen port available in order to deliver oxygen if required. In addition, the needles used to administer adrenaline to effectively treat anaphylaxis were not the correct length or gauge.

Arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment required further improvement as not all the required radiation protection information was available. Although the practice had appointed a Radiation Protection Advisor (RPA) and Medical Physics Expert (MPE), and registered with the Health and Safety Executive for work with radiation generators since our last inspection, there were no local rules or radiation risk assessment available for review. Dental radiation risk assessments area legal requirement under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 to ensure safety in dental practices. They identify hazards, evaluate risks to staff and patients, implement control measures and are often advised by the RPA. 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 practice had made improvements to identify and manage risks effectively. The practice had addressed all recommendations from the fire risk assessment, health and safety risk assessment and Legionella risk assessment which had been completed by an external company on 21 November 2025. This included performing in-house testing of the fire safety equipment, undertaking fire drills, displaying hot water signage and descaling of taps. The practice had also taken action to improve sharps safety at the practice. Posters had been displayed demonstrating what to do in the event of a sharp’s injury which also included contact details for the local occupational health department. Staff had also completed training in sepsis, and the practice had displayed a sepsis poster in the reception area to inform reception staff about signs and symptoms of potential sepsis.

Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Staff had access to the relevant safety data sheets in line with Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2022.

The arrangements to assess and mitigate the risks of fire at the practice had improved. All recommendations from a fire risk assessment completed on 21 November 2025 had been actioned. The fire safety equipment was subjected to regular in-house testing to ensure it was in good working order and staff had participated in fire evacuation drills and in-house fire scenario training.

Servicing of the autoclaves, compressor and most of the X-ray units had been completed.

At the inspection on 21 January 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulations:

The practice had a recruitment policy and service level agreement in place with the recruitment agencies to ensure that agency dental nurses and reception staff had been subjected to the appropriate pre-employment checks, to ensure agency staff were fit and proper to work.

The inspection team were told that a new dental nurse was starting work the week after our inspection, and all pre-employment checks had been completed before their start date.

Staff had completed continuing professional development in sepsis.

Further improvements were required. There was still no evidence that proof of right to work in the UK had been sought for all staff. Employers must ensure that all employees have the legal right to work in the UK before starting employment. While the practice had national insurance numbers to review for staff members, these do not qualify as right to work checks.

At the inspection on 19 March 2026, the inspection team recognised that the practice had addressed many of the concerns found during our last inspection, but further improvements were required to ensure full compliance with the regulations.

Since our last inspection, the practice had purchased 1 packet of heavy-duty gloves. These heavy-duty gloves were in the original packet and unused, and there was no log to track and monitor their use. The practice had also purchased an apron for staff to wear during the decontamination process. The apron was not disposable, and it was still in its original packaging, unopened. In addition, the practice had purchased a magnifying glass, but this was handheld and not illuminated, and a small measuring jug to measure the amount of detergent used during the manual cleaning process, but there was no clear way of determining the amount of water used. The practice did not have any boxes to transport clean and dirty instruments from the treatment rooms to the decontamination room. The practice had installed a lift to transport dirty and clean instruments from the downstairs treatment room to the decontamination room, but this was not operational on the day of our inspection. Furthermore, as the instruments were placed directly into a basket within the lift, there was a risk of cross-contamination. There was no hand wash, hand lotion or hand towels available within the decontamination room at the time of our inspection to facilitate effective hand washing.

The inspection team could not find evidence of daily, weekly or quarterly tests of the autoclave recorded in the logbook and the cleaning checklists for surgeries, reception and decontamination room were all the same and did not highlight the different regimes required for each area.

The practice had completed an infection prevention and control audit in February 2026. The audit did not reflect the findings on the day of our inspection and failed to identify areas of required improvement.

The practice had taken action to address all recommendations from the Legionella risk assessment undertaken in November 2025. Staff had descaled taps and kept accurate records confirming that the temperatures of the hot and cold sentinel taps were monitored regularly, helping to reduce the risk of Legionella and other waterborne bacteria.

Single-use items, such as healing caps for implant abutments were only used once and not re-used, in line with national guidance.

The practice had protocols to ensure safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste and sharps bins were not overfilled.

At the inspection on 19 March 2026, the inspection team recognised that the practice had addressed many of the concerns found during our last inspection, but further improvements were required to ensure full compliance with the regulations.

While the practice had developed a medicines log, this had not been completed and had no entries. This meant the practice could not track how many medicines were stored at the practice.

However, the practice had made improvements to ensure that medicines were stored securely in a locked cabinet. The practice had distributed a formal reminder to all clinicians to ensure that medicines were prescribed in line with relevant professional standards, and clinical staff had signed this document. The practice planned to conduct an antimicrobial prescribing audit in the months after our inspection, to evaluate whether antimicrobial prescribing was as line with guidance.