Chingford Road Dental Surgery

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.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. Staff were encouraged to participate in medical emergency scenario training.

Staff we spoke with told us that equipment and instruments were well maintained and readily available.

The provider described the processes they had in place to identify and manage risks. Staff felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and the reporting of risks was encouraged.

Whilst the practice had all the recommended emergency medicine, we found that improvements should be made to ensure the medical kit included all necessary equipment, as advised in the Resuscitation Council UK guidance. We also noted from the checklist that they were checked monthly and not weekly as recommended by guidance. We received evidence following the inspection that action had been taken to rectify appropriately.

Glucagon (a medicine used to treat severe hypoglycaemia) was stored in the fridge. However, the fridge did not have a thermometer to ensure temperature met storage requirements between 2 and 8 degrees. This was rectified following the inspection.

The premises were clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely.

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

Fire exits were clear and well signposted, and fire safety equipment was serviced and well maintained.

The practice ensured equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. The practice ensured the facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations.

A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. The management of fire safety should be improved to ensure regular fire evacuation drills were undertaken.

We noted that the practice did not have a fire alarm or emergency lighting. However, the provider told us there were plans to install these on completion of the current renovation works.

At the time of inspection infra-red heaters had been installed. The gas boiler was in the process of being replaced with an electric water heater.

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

The practice had risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health.

The practice had implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. This included sharps safety and sepsis awareness.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Ongoing antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient staffing levels.

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

Staff discussed their training needs during 1-to-1 meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development. The provider told us they undertook these regularly, however, they had not recorded all interactions.

Staff we spoke with 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 a recruitment policy which reflected the relevant legislation to help them employ suitable staff, but this was not always followed. We reviewed all staff files and found recruitment checks were not fully undertaken prior to employment, for example, proof of identification and conduct in previous employments. Additionally, the appropriate level of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had not been obtained for all staff members. The provider had identified this prior to our visit, and we saw evidence they had applied for enhanced DBS checks for these members of staff.

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

Not all newly appointed staff had received a structured induction. The provider assured this was undertaken, but not documented. Clinical staff completed continuing professional development required for their registration with the General Dental Council.

The practice arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date required improvements to enable the provider to periodically review key parameters such as completion status, level of training required and mode of training. When we inspected, we found the process of retrieving staff training to be disorganised.



We saw the practice had processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.

The practice appeared clean and there was an effective schedule in place to ensure it was kept clean.

Staff followed infection control principles, including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Hazardous waste was segregated and disposed of safely by staff. An up-to-date pre-acceptance audit confirmed waste produced by the practice was handled and disposed of safely and responsibly.

We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance.

The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance and the equipment in use was maintained and serviced. Staff demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes, and we saw single use items were not reprocessed.

Staff had completed appropriate training in infection prevention and control.

The practice undertook infection prevention and control (IPC) audits. However, this was not in line with current guidance. We reviewed current and historical IPC audits and found that they were completed annually instead of the stipulated six monthly.

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

The practice had policies and procedures in place to ensure clinical waste was segregated and stored appropriately in line with guidance.

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