Smith Dental Practice

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.

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 identified and managed risks effectively and staff described the processes. This included sharps safety, sepsis awareness and lone working.

Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. They felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and this was reflected in our findings.

We saw that the medical emergency kit was not readily accessible. Following this feedback, the practice moved the kit to ensure it could be quickly accessed . Equipment and medicines 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 and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. At the time of our inspection, the provider did not have a valid, satisfactory, five year Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) certificate. Additionally, satisfactory records to confirming required servicing and validation of the autoclave and compressor was carried out in line with manufacturer’s instructions, were not always available.

Following our inspection, the provider submitted evidence that servicing was booked to be carried out by suitably qualified persons.

The practice had some arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. At the time of our inspection the provider had not registered all radiographic equipment with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as required but took immediate action to do so. 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 managed fire safety well, and fire exits were clear and well signposted.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. The practice did not ensure that an accurate record of the available stock of medicines kept at the service was completed. Following our feedback, the provider took immediate action to address this.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff, yet this was not consistently followed. Evidence to confirm that required pre employment checks were carried out was not available for all staff. The provider acknowledged the issue and submitted assurances that action would be taken to rectify this issue for future recruitment.

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 discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, during clinical supervision at practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice.

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.

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 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.

Records to confirm that equipment was maintained and serviced in line with manufacturers’ instructions, were not always available. Following our inspection the provider submitted evidence that this issue was addressed.

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.