Adam Sapera 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 most were stored safely. However, cleaning products were stored in an unlocked cupboard. Improvements could be made to ensure that only trained workers could access stored chemical products to ensure compliance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). Following our assessment, the practice carried out a risk assessment and subsequently made arrangements to have a lock fitted to this cupboard. We saw satisfactory records of servicing and validation of equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. Fire exits were clear and well signposted, and fire safety equipment was serviced and well maintained.

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. The management of fire safety was effective. 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, sepsis awareness and lone working. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. Further improvements could be made to ensure these audits took into account the guidance provided by the College of General Dentistry, and looked at dose, frequency and duration of each antibiotic prescribed.

Patients felt there were enough staff working at the practice. One patient told us, ‘Supporting staff, receptionists and assistants, have always been very helpful.’ Another patient said, ‘Reception staff are always welcoming and polite with a friendly smile.’ They were able to book appointments when needed. One patient told us, ‘I have been a patient for over 30 years and have always received excellent treatment. Regular appointments are fixed for me to keep my teeth under observation. In the event of an emergency, I have been given an appointment without delay.’

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. One staff member told us, ‘I find Adam very approachable and he always listens to what I have to say.’ They were proud to work in the practice. Staff discussed their training needs through ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development. We saw evidence of performance development reviews for the hygienist. 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. Staff told us they had received a structured induction programme, which included safeguarding.

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. 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. One patient told us, ‘The Practice is extremely clean’ and another said, ‘There is a calming effect in the waiting room and the entire premises are immaculate.’

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. However, clinical waste awaiting collection was stored within a cupboard which was unlocked. Although it was unlikely patients or members of the public could access the clinical waste, improvements could be made to ensure it was stored securely, taking into account the guidance issued in the Health Technical Memorandum 07-01: Safe and sustainable management of healthcare waste. We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance.

The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance. Staff had appropriate training, and the practice completed infection prevention and control (IPC) audits on a yearly basis. Following feedback, the practice changed policy to ensure these audits were completed every 6 months 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. The practice had policies and procedures in place to ensure clinical waste was segregated in line with guidance.

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