Beauchamp House 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.

The practice had processes to identify and manage risks; staff we spoke with were able to describe these to us. Staff demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety. 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. Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. The premises were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. Hazardous substances were clearly labelled and stored safely. Not all rooms displayed the relevant signage to indicate that radiography equipment was in use; the provider confirmed that they would order this signage immediately. We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. The fire risk assessment for the premises had been carried out by staff. When we reviewed this, we observed that staff had not undergone any specific training to support competency in this role. We discussed with the provider the implications of this, and the benefits of having a fire risk assessment carried out by an independent assessor, which can be revisited annually by staff, to check whether any changes in the practice effect its validity over time. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. On the day of inspection, we were unable to verify indemnity coverage for a clinician providing dental implants. We have since received this from the provider. Newly appointed staff had a structured induction, which included safeguarding. The provider ensured 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. There were also effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient levels of staff on duty at all times. They 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 stated they felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice. Staff discussed their training needs during appraisals and practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance. This included procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment. The practice had cleaning procedures and schedules to ensure effective cleaning. We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. Staff received appropriate training, and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions. We saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed. Staff followed infection control principles, including the use of personal protective equipment and safely segregated and disposed of hazardous waste. We observed that the decontamination room was very warm. We drew the attention of the provider to this, and the need for adequate ventilation/air extraction for people working in this room. The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance.

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