Atwal & Barot High Street 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.

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. 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. We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. Fire exits were clear and well signposted. Not all records were available to demonstrate the servicing and maintenance of fire safety equipment.

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. Some improvements were required to the management of fire safety. Annual servicing had not been completed on emergency lighting. Staff were not checking smoke alarms to ensure they were in good working order and were not testing the fire alarm at the required frequency. Following this assessment, we were sent a newly developed log to demonstrate that smoke alarms and the fire alarm would be tested at the required frequency and were told that emergency lighting was booked for service on 13 August 2024. The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. 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. We were told that no staff at the practice worked alone apart from cleaning staff. A lone worker risk assessment was provided by the cleaning company although this was not available on the day of assessment. There were no sepsis posters on display and not all staff had completed sepsis training. Following this assessment, we were told that staff had been requested to complete sepsis training. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were not carried out. Although we were assured that these would be completed going forward.

At the time of our assessment, the patients felt there were enough staff working at the practice. They were able to book appointments when needed.

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 ongoing informal discussions. Formal appraisal meetings had not been held with staff within the last 4 years. However, staff told us that they could discuss learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development informally with the provider. 45% of staff had worked at the practice for over 9 years. Following this assessment, we were assured that appraisals had been scheduled for September 2024. 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. Although we noted that a copy of photographic identification had not been kept on file on each occasion. We were shown a copy of an amended recruitment log which now recorded that photographic identification must be obtained and kept on file. 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 some arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals although we noted that not all staff had completed training regarding sepsis, fire safety, safeguarding vulnerable adults or learning disabilities and autism awareness. Following this assessment, we were told that staff had been assigned this training and this would be monitored to ensure completion. We saw the practice had effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities.

Patients told us that the practice looked clean, and equipment appeared to be in a good state of repair.

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 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 had appropriate training, and the practice completed infection prevention and control (IPC) audits, although these were not completed at the frequency recommended in current guidance. The provider assured us that these would be completed every 6 months going forward. 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.