DS Dental Studio

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. Staff had not completed face to face training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support annually since 2022. However, some staff had completed online training. We raised this with the provider who assured us training would be completed in the upcoming weeks. Staff did not 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.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and was not always checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. We noted that the emergency drugs were checked monthly and not weekly. The maximum and minimum temperature for the fridge where the Glucogon injection (the medicine used to treat hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar levels)) was stored had never been recorded. We raised this with the provider who assured us that this would be addressed. 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. However, we noted the electrical 5-year fixed wire safety certificate was carried out on 31/08/2021 and had actions outstanding. We raised this with the provider who assured us that this would be addressed. Fire exits were clear and well signposted, and fire safety equipment was serviced and well maintained.

The practice ensured the majority of equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. The practice ensured the facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations. We noted there was damage to the dental light stand and chair in one of the surgeries which posed as an infection control risk. This had not been picked up in the most recent infection prevention control audit. We raised this with the provider who assured us that this would be addressed. A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. However, not all actions had been implemented. For example, the risk assessment stated all staff should complete regular fire awareness training. We noted the majority of staff had not completed refresher training and some staff only carried out training after the inspection was announced. The fire marshall had not completed refresher training since 2021. The management of fire safety was effective. The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. However, radiography quality assurance audits had never been completed. 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, sepsis awareness and lone working. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out; however, they did not take into account the most recent guidelines.

At the time of our inspection, the patients we asked felt there were enough staff working at the practice. They were able to book appointments when needed.

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, clinical supervision, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development. Some 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. However, the majority of staff had not completed safeguarding training since 2021.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedure to help them employ suitable staff, including for agency or locum staff. These reflected the relevant legislation; however, the practice did not always follow this. For example, the groups’ policy states Discolosure Barring Service (DBS) checks should be carried out every 5 years. We saw, 5 out of 9 staff did not have an up to date DBS. We could not be assured the registered manager had checked that there had been no changes since the initial DBS check as there was no evidence of a risk assessment taking place nor had staff completed a new DBS. Hepatitis B and vaccination records were not available for the majority of staff. However, staff titre levels had been documented. 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 did not have arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. For example, the majority of staff had not completed safeguarding training since 2021. Staff had not completed face to face training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support annually since 2022. We saw the practice had effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.

Patients told us that the practice looked clean, and equipment appeared to be in a good state of repair.

Staff told us how they ensured the premises and equipment were clean and well maintained. They demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. Staff told us that single use items were not reprocessed.

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. 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. Staff had appropriate training, and the practice completed Infection prevention and control (IPC) audits in line with current guidance. However, we noted there was damage to the dental light stand and chair in one of the surgeries which posed as an infection control risk. This had not been picked up in the most recent infection prevention control audit. We raised this with the provider who assured us that this would be addressed. 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.