Abbey Mead Dental Practice and Implant Centre

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 we spoke with told us that equipment and instruments were well maintained and readily available.

Emergency equipment and medicines were generally available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. We saw a first aid kit, which was stored in the reception area, was out of date. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Substances that were included in the control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) regulations were stored safely. However, a COSHH warning sign was not present on the door to the cleaning substances storage cupboard. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Warning of the presence of an oxygen cylinder, on the on the first floor, was not in place. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of x-ray and decontamination equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. Improvements were needed to the management of fire safety. In particular, a fire risk assessment was carried out in January 2023. Actions resulting from this assessment remained outstanding. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Monthly emergency lighting ‘power failure’ tests were not performed. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Electrical installation condition report findings for one of the two supplies was unsatisfactory. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Wooden sheets, floor coverings and paint pots were present in the fire escape route stairwell from the first floor. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. A fire drill had not been carried in the previous 12 months. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed.

The practice generally ensured equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. All of the required radiation protection information was available. The area used to house the orthopantomogram (OPG) x-ray machine was not monitored by staff which placed it at risk of unauthorised interference. Improvements could be made to ensure the machine is monitored when not in use. Warning of radiation danger caused by the orthopantomogram (OPG) x-ray machine was not in place on a route leading past the machine. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. 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 associated with sepsis awareness and lone working. The practice’s sharps risk assessment was carried out by the previous provider. Improvements could be made to ensure the risk assessment was specific to Abbey Mead Dental and Implant Centre. General waste bins, that were stored outside the practice, were not secured to prevent unauthorised interference or potential arson. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Evidence to confirm that annual servicing emergency lighting had been carried out was not available. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. A fire escape route door handle was not labelled appropriately. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. 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. They also discussed 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. 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 had arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. Disability and Autism training was not available for 1 member of staff. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Fire Safety training was not available for 2 members of staff. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Infection control training was not available for 1 member of staff. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. We saw the practice had effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.

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 patient areas of the practice appeared clean. We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments aligned with national guidance. Staff followed infection control principles, including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Improvements were required to ensure the effective management of cleaning standards in the clinical areas of the practice. In particular, we saw mould and dust on the windowsill in surgery 2. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Black mould was visible behind the worktops in the decontamination room. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Colour coded cleaning equipment was not stored separately to reduce the risk of cross contamination. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. The wall to worktop seal was incomplete in surgery 2. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Sellotape was seen holding the examination light together on the patient chair in surgery 1. Improvements could be made to ensure equipment is repaired in a timely way.

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. The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment. Hazardous waste was segregated safely but improvement was needed to storage arrangements. In particular, the outside clinical waste bin was not tethered to a fixed point to prevent its removal from the premises. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. An annual infection prevention and control statement was not available. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Oversight of the standard of cleaning performed by the cleaner could not be evidenced. We have since received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed.

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