Bradford Urgent Dental Centre

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 providing safe care in line with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance. Although there are issues to be addressed, the impact of our concerns relates to the governance and the oversight of the risks, rather than a patient safety risk.

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 had systems to identify and manage risks, and staff described the processes clearly. They demonstrated an open culture around safety and felt confident that risks were well managed. However, our findings highlighted areas for improvement in relation to risk oversight and management.

Routine testing and monitoring of fire equipment were not being carried out, indicating that the oversight of the fire safety management system was not effective. However, the practice had up-to-date servicing records for fire safety and electrical equipment, and fire exits were clear and well signposted.

Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines that were checked in line with national guidance. They knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. On the whole, hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use.

While the practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, these were not always effectively implemented to ensure safe recruitment of staff, including agency or locum staff. Improvements were needed to the recruitment system to ensure key checks were consistently undertaken in line with requirements. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were accepted at the point of recruitment, if within the last three years, without risk assessments being carried out.

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

Newly appointed staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were enough staff on duty at all times. They 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.

The practice ensured staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff were provided with opportunities to raise and discuss various matters in team meetings.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they enjoyed working in the practice.

Improvements were needed to infection prevent and control (IPC) procedures to ensure they were consistently followed in line with published guidance, particularly in relation to the ongoing daily and weekly testing of decontamination equipment. Although the practice had IPC protocols based on published guidance and staff had received appropriate training, these were not always effectively implemented in practice.

Improvements were needed to the procedures for reducing the risk of Legionella and other bacteria in water systems to ensure full compliance with risk assessments and current guidance. While the practice had relevant procedures in place, these were not consistently implemented.

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.

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

Equipment was maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions.

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.