Farnham Road 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. We noted that a number of pieces of emergency medical equipment were missing from the medical emergency bag. Risk assessments had not been carried on the window blinds which had looped cords, in line with Department of Health guidance. Cleaning equipment was not stored separately to reduce the risk of cross contamination. Not all of the hazardous substances, used in the practice, were clearly labelled and stored appropriately. Risk assessments had been completed but corresponding safety data sheets were not available. Safer sharps were not being used. This was contrary to the practice's sharps risk assessment. Since our visit we have received evidence to confirm all of these shortfalls have been addressed. The practice appeared clean and there was a schedule in place to ensure it was kept clean. We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of decontamination equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. Three yearly performance checks were carried out for the x-ray machines but staff were unsure if the machines required electro-mechanical servicing. We were assured that investigations would be carried out as soon as practicably possible. Improvements were needed to the management of fire safety. In particular, the emergency lighting was not tested and serviced appropriately. Since our visit we have received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. The general waste bin at the rear of the practice was not locked to prevent unauthorised interference. Since our visit we have received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Fire safety training was completed by 14 out of 20 staff in the previous 12 months. Since our visit we have received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. Immunity status to Hepatitis B was not known for 4 clinical staff. Improvement could be made to ensure that all clinical staff have adequate immunity for vaccine preventable infectious diseases and risk assessments carried out for any staff going through the vaccination process. Since our visit we have received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. Newly appointed staff had a structured induction. 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 with the exception of fire training. 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 annual appraisals, 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. Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. However, we saw that some instruments were stored unpackaged in treatment rooms. Since our visit we have received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. 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 clinical waste bin at the rear of the practice was locked but not tethered to prevent unauthorised removal. Since our visit we have received evidence to confirm this shortfall has been addressed. The practice completed infection prevention and control audits in line with current guidance. Improvements were needed to ensure that the floor and worktop surfaces in the decontamination room were complete and impervious. An annual infection prevention and control statement was not available. Since our visit we have 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.