Dental Specialists MK

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. The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 30 January 2024.

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. Immediate life support training (or basic life support training plus patient assessment, airway management techniques and automated external defibrillator training) was also completed by staff providing treatment to patients under sedation. 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

Emergency equipment and medicines that were missing at our last inspection had been purchased and were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. 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, including radiography equipment, in line with manufacturer’s instructions. Fire exits were clear and well signposted, and fire safety equipment was serviced and well maintained. We identified scope for improvement in how the completion of monitoring checks of the effectiveness of fire safety equipment was recorded. The provider took immediate action to address this.

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 was effective. Specifically, we found that assessments of risk from fire and legionella had been completed by a competent person and any actions identified had been addressed. Recording of completion of legionella checks were completed in line with guidance. We noted that assessments to mitigate risks associated with the storage of oxygen and argon cylinders and the need to have a second oxygen cylinder available whilst carrying out sedation treatment, were in place. The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The practice had risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines and the use and storage of prescription pads. Dispensed medicines were labelled in line with recognised guidance. 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 annual appraisals and 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. Staff told us they had received a structured induction programme, which included safeguarding.

The practice had implemented a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected guidance and legislation. We found that all staff recruited since our previous inspection had evidence of required pre-employment checks, including references, disclosure and barring service checks, employment history, proof of identification and vaccination against blood borne illnesses. Where evidence of immunity was not confirmed, the provider had implemented an assessment to mitigate any risk. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. Since our previous inspection the provider had adopted a new induction process. We found that all 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 arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. We found that staff carrying out sedation treatment had the training, skills and experience to do so safely. We saw the practice had effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.

The judgement for Infection prevention and control is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

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