Implant and Aesthetic Center Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found this practice was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The provider had made sufficient 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 be following 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 Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led 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.

The practice's risk management systems for monitoring and mitigating the various risks arising from the carrying on of the regulated activities required improvement. In particular, the risks associated with infection prevention and control, the management of medical emergency equipment and medicines, and radiation safety. In addition, some improvements were required to recruitment processes to ensure they fully complied with legislation.

The systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were not effective. As a result, the practice did not consistently identify risks, shortfalls or opportunities for improvement, which limited its ability to make necessary and timely changes to the service.

The inspection team reviewed an infection prevention and control audit which had been completed on 3 February 2026. The audit did not reflect the findings of our inspection and had failed to recognise that the decontamination of dental instruments was not in line with guidance. Where the audit had identified that in-house weekly and quarterly testing and validation of the autoclave were not being completed staff had failed to act immediately to address this finding.

However, the inspection team recognised that the practice was in the process of introducing and developing governance systems, and it would take time for these systems and processes to become embedded.

Where the inspection highlighted issues, the practice took action to address these concerns immediately. Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety and wanted to demonstrate improvement.

Relevant policies and protocols were in place for the use of closed-circuit television (CCTV), and the service had considered the use of CCTV within the treatment rooms as being necessary and proportionate for the proposed purpose. The practice had displayed clear signage throughout the practice and at the entrance to each treatment room, to ensure patients were informed of the presence of CCTV in the treatment rooms.

There were processes for investigating incidents and accidents, and the practice had ensured there were systems in place to receive and act on safety alerts such as safety information provided by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The registered manager who was the principal specialist oral surgeon, had formally appointed themselves as the safeguarding, Legionella and fire safety lead for the practice. As they only attended the London clinic approximately twice a month, they had delegated these responsibilities to the other clinicians in their absence, and ensured that those undertaking the roles had completed the required training.

Staff had taken action to ensure that dental care records were completed in line with the College of General Dentistry’s good practice guidance about clinical examination and record keeping. The inspection team noted that dental care records had improved significantly since our last inspection, however further improvements were required to ensure risk assessments relating to risks of caries, periodontal disease, tooth surface loss and oral cancer were consistently documented. Dentists graded and reported on the radiographs they took. Improvements were required to ensure that the choice of radiograph was justified within the patient records, to ensure that clinical staff were adhering to the practice’s as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) policy, which aimed to keep the level of ionising radiation to patients as low as possible.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.