J & R Dental Ruislip

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.

Emergency equipment and medicines 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. 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 was effective. 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 implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. This included sharps safety and lone working. Sepsis prompts for staff and information posters were available within the practice. We discussed with the provider the advantages of ensuring that all members of the dental team, including the receptionists, were able to recognise the signs and symptoms of sepsis and triage patients correctly if needed. Following our on-site assessment the provider told us staff would undertake sepsis refresher training. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. 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, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. Improvements could be made to ensure appraisals covered 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. These reflected the relevant legislation. On the day of the assessment, not all recruitment documentation, including employment histories, induction records and indemnity certificates were available for review. The provider told us that some of these documents were stored off-site. Following the on-site assessment the provider submitted the missing recruitment documentation. Improvements could be made to how recruitment documents are managed and stored to ensure that those who need to review them can access them. Not all clinical staff members had a record of evidence of their response to the Hepatitis B vaccination they had received or evidence that they had received their third vaccination. On the day of the assessment, there were no records to show that the provider had assessed the risks associated for non-responding or unvaccinated staff. Following the on-site assessment the provider submitted evidence to show relevant staff had booked appointments for the blood test and the third vaccination. 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. Improvements could be made to ensure this covered the management of medical emergencies and the process for raising safeguarding concerns within the practice. 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 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). 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 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 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.