National Dental Also known as National Dental and Implant Centre 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 providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 16 January 2026.

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 16 April 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulations:

A fire risk assessment had been reviewed by a responsible person and the actions within the risk assessment had been completed. In addition, the emergency lighting and fire equipment had been serviced, and monthly checks of the fire extinguishers had been implemented.

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.

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. Electromechanical servicing and 3 yearly performance checks had been completed for both X-ray units.

Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely and had appropriate risk assessments and safety data sheets accessible to staff, in line with Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations 2002.

An Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) had been carried out, however some remedial work identified had not yet been actioned.

Further improvements were required to the sharps risk assessment which was not reflective of practice.

Although some improvements have been made to the premises, such as the removal of rubbish and clutter, some areas still require attention, and work is ongoing to address the damp issue.

At the inspection on 16 April 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulations:

Newly appointed staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction.

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. Evidence of immunisation against the Hepatitis B virus including the level of response (titre levels) was not available for 1 staff member and another had no risk assessment in place whilst at vaccination stage. In addition, 1 staff member had not had a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check carried out for this employment, which was not in line with the practice’s recruitment policy.

The practice had recruited qualified clinical staff and improvements were ongoing to the structure of the staffing at the practice. However, not all staff we spoke with could demonstrate they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles and required further support and development.

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

Staff demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Staff knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns within the practice but the updated information on how to escalate concerns externally included incorrect contact details.

The practice team are all new to the practice and leaders told us of their plans to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities through regular one to one meetings and annual appraisals.

At the inspection on 16 April 2026, we found the practice had made the following improvements to comply with the regulations:

The practice had infection and control procedures that reflected published guidance.

The practice had improved their procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria developing in water systems, in line with an updated risk assessment and current guidance. Recommendations and actions had been completed, including maintaining a log of hot and cold water temperature checks.

The decontamination room was not in use at the time of our inspection due to ongoing work to address the damp and mould. Equipment and decontamination processes have been temporarily relocated to the spare treatment room. Protocols to ensure effective cleaning of the practice, and for the safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste have been improved and cleaning schedules have been updated.

The practice completed infection prevention and control (IPC) audits, but the most recently completed audit was not wholly reflective of practice and did not contain an action plan.

Training in infection and control processes were ongoing, and we identified some gaps in knowledge that the team were working to address. For example, there remained some confusion over the use of disinfectant for the dental unit water lines (DUWLs) and this process was not detailed in the surgery daily checklists. A revised system had been implemented for the weekly and daily testing of the decontamination equipment which was not yet imbedded, and we saw some dental instruments in the surgery drawers had not been pouched following sterilisation.

The judgement for Medicines optimisation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.