Village 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.

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

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and emergency medicines were checked in accordance with national guidance. We noted that the weekly checklist did not include a list of present medical emergency equipment. We brought this to the provider`s attention and they took immediate action. Following the assessment, we were provided with an updated list which included emergency equipment present, prompting staff to check these weekly. Staff could access emergency equipment and medicines in a timely way. The premises were clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. The practice ensured equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. We were shown an email from an engineer advising that the compressor did not require an external written scheme of examination due to its size. The provider implemented weekly and monthly in-house checks to ensure the pressure vessel system was maintained and remained safe to use in the absence of external servicing. The practice ensured the facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations.

Fire exits were clear and well signposted, and the fire alarm system and fire extinguishers were serviced and well maintained. We noted that servicing of the emergency lighting system was overdue. In response to our inspection feedback, the provider submitted evidence that this service had now been booked. We were shown a fire risk assessment carried out by an external company in 2018 and an internal fire risk assessment dated July 2022. We noted that this had not been completed by a competent person and was not being reviewed regularly. In response to our inspection feedback, the practice submitted evidence that they had booked a new external fire risk assessment. 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 dispensed medication and there was a dispensing log in place. We noted that the system in place to monitor stock kept on site were not effective. Following the inspection, the practice submitted an updated log that included details of incoming and dispensed medication. Further improvements could be made to ensure the log included current stock and was suitable to identify if prescription only medication went missing, to prevent misuse. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. The antimicrobial prescribing audit we were shown on the day of the assessment was not aligned to the current guidance and was not suitable to drive improvement. In response to our inspection feedback, the provider submitted an updated audit, which included a detailed action plan.

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 annual appraisals, 1 to 1 meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development. 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 and procedure to help them employ suitable staff, including for agency or locum staff. These broadly reflected the relevant legislation. Improvements could be made to ensure records of communication requesting evidence of conduct in previous employment were logged and stored in the staff folders. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. Newly appointed staff had a structured induction, and clinical staff completed continuing professional development required for their registration with the General Dental Council. The practice had arrangement in place to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. We saw the practice had effective 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).

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. We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments, which broadly aligned with national guidance. We noted that instruments were not fully immersed for scrubbing during the decontamination process and there were no systems in place to monitor the use of heavy-duty gloves and long-handled brushes. We brought these to the provider`s attention and they took immediate action. Following the inspection, we were provided with evidence showing that clinical staff had completed further infection prevention and control training, and the provider told us that staff had received additional in-house training. In addition, the provider made plans to ensure infection prevention and control processes would be regularly reviewed in the future. Staff had appropriate training, and the practice completed infection prevention and control (IPC) audits in line with current guidance. 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.