Asquith 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, and 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. Staff were encouraged to participate in medical emergency scenario training. The premises were visibly 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. Fire safety equipment was serviced and well maintained. However, we found a fire safety risk assessment had not been carried out by a competent person and the fire exit was not clearly signposted. Following our assessment arrangements were made for fire safety risk assessment to be carried out within the next few weeks by a competent person. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. However, we noted antimicrobial prescribing audits were not carried out. The practice should implement audits for prescribing of antibiotic medicines taking into account the guidance provided by the College of General Dentistry.

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. Newly appointed staff had a structured induction, which included safeguarding. There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities within their capabilities. Staff discussed their training needs during annual appraisals, 1-to-1 meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions however, we found there was no process in place to track their training. They also discussed learning needs, general well-being and aims for future professional development. The practice had a recruitment policy and procedure to help them employ suitable staff. The policy reflected the relevant legislation. However, we found the practice were not following their own policy. Appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were not always carried out at the point of recruitment. We discussed this with the provider and were assured this would be followed in the future for all new employees. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. However, the provider did not ensure clinical staff completed continuing professional development required for their registration with the General Dental Council.

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. 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.