Alma 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 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 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.

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

The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions.

The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff.

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 we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient staffing levels. They demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.

The practice had arrangements to ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. We noted that fire awareness training had not been completed for any of the staff. The practice assured us that this would be addressed and rectified.

There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general well being and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, one-to-one meetings, during clinical supervision, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

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

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred, care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged.

Staff kept up-to-date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

The practice offered orthodontic treatment for patients. The orthodontist carried out a patient assessment in line with recognised guidance from the British Orthodontic Society.

We looked at 22 patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was in line with recognised guidance. We saw evidence the dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

The practice had systems for the safe handling and prescribing of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use. However, the process was not consistently followed. We discussed this with staff and were assured this would be reviewed and a new process implemented.

Where applicable, patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national Faster Diagnosis Standard.

Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

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