Longford Dental Practise

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.

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 processes to identify and manage risks and staff we spoke with were able to describe these to us. Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. Staff felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and this was reflected in our findings.

Not all emergency equipment seen had expiry dates recorded. The provider could therefore not assure themselves that these items where within their expiry date. We were assured that these items would be replaced immediately following this assessment. Emergency medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

Staff providing treatment to patients under sedation had also completed immediate life support training. Staff were also encouraged to participate in medical emergency scenario training.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Control of substances hazardous to health risk assessments had been completed for some products in use at the practice. Safety data sheets were not available. We were assured that these would be made available to staff.

We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of the majority of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. At the time of assessment the provider was unable to provide evidence that the 3 yearly performance check had been completed on the OPG machine. We were sent evidence that this had been completed following this assessment.

The management of fire safety was effective, and fire exits were clear and well signposted. At the time of assessment we saw evidence that the fire alarm had received an annual service, there was no evidence of the previous interim, 6 monthly service having been completed within the correct timescale.

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

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance.

Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

We observed use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed.

The practice had effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment and current guidance.

The practice had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. Although we noted that the clinical waste bin was not locked at the time of assessment, we were assured that this would remain locked when not in use going forward.

The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions. However, there were no records to demonstrate that 1 of the practice’s 2 autoclaves had an up-to-date service. We were told that this had been completed and following this assessment evidence was forwarded to demonstrate this.

The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance but these were not completed at the required frequency. We were assured that these audits would be completed every 6 months in future.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance.

Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes.

We observed use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed.

The practice had effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment and current guidance.

The practice had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. Although we noted that the clinical waste bin was not locked at the time of assessment, we were assured that this would remain locked when not in use going forward.

The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions. However, there were no records to demonstrate that 1 of the practice’s 2 autoclaves had an up-to-date service. We were told that this had been completed and following this assessment evidence was forwarded to demonstrate this.

The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance but these were not completed at the required frequency. We were assured that these audits would be completed every 6 months in future.

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