Ringwood Dental

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.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. We noted that the area used to house the medical emergency equipment was not monitored by staff. This shortfall has been addressed. Hazardous substances stored in the staff kitchen were not stored in line with the control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) regulations. The premises were visibly clean. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. COSHH risk assessments and COSHH safety data sheets were not available for every COSHH identified substance used in the practice. Rectangular collimators were not available for 7 of the 8 x-ray machines. X-ray machine local rules serial numbers did not match the serial numbers on engineer reports. The practice was unable to demonstrate that that the actions resulting from a critical examination of one x-ray machine had been completed. The practice used a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) x-ray machine to create 3D images of the patient’s mouth. The management controls of this machine were not effective. The management of fire safety required improvement. The fire exit at the rear of the practice was not clear and well signposted. Evidence to confirm the fire extinguishers had been serviced, in the previous 12 months, was not available. General rubbish bins were not locked to prevent unauthorised interference. A fire risk assessment was carried out the day before our visit. We will review the completion of any resulting action plan during our next visit. A lone working risk assessment had not been carried out for the cleaner who worked when the practice was closed.

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient staffing levels. 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. The practice ensured clinical staff were registered with the General Dental Council. Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice. There were processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. Evidence to confirm that appraisals were carried out for all staff was not available. The practice had a recruitment policy and procedure to help them employ suitable staff, but checks had not been carried out in accordance with relevant legislation. We were assured that systems would be followed in future to ensure checks were undertaken before a new member of staff started to work at the practice. Records of Hepatitis B antibody levels for 6 clinical staff were not available. Improvements could be made to take action to ensure that all clinical staff have adequate immunity for vaccine preventable infectious diseases. The practice had systems in place to ensure all staff had completed training as per recommended national guidance, but improvement was needed. This shortfall has since been addressed.

We observed use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. We saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed. Staff demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes nut improvements were needed. In particular, a tap in treatment room 3 had limescale present. A foot operated clinical waste bin in the CBCT room was broken which meant it could not be operated correctly, and oversight of cleaning standards could not be evidenced. A clinical waste bin, stored outside the practice, was not secured to prevent unauthorised access and interference. Records showed that the hot water did not routinely reach the required temperature but actions to rectify this issue remained outstanding. All these shortfalls have since been addressed.

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