Hayes 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. Where we found concerns relating to safe and effective staffing and safe environments, these were addressed immediately following feedback from the inspection team

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 felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice. Improvements were required to ensure that the risks associated with lone working had been assessed and mitigated and to ensure that all staff were following the practice policy on safer sharps. Immediately following our inspection, the practice provided us with a lone worker risk assessment and issued a memo to all staff, highlighting the practice’s policy relating to safer sharps, which aligned with guidance published from the Health and Safety Executive: Health and Safety (Safer Sharps in Healthcare) Regulations 2013. Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Following the inspection, we saw that the practice had reviewed the processes for storing glucagon, which is a medicine used to treat low blood sugar, to ensure it was stored in line with manufacturer’s instructions. 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. Following feedback from the inspection team, the practice reviewed if a second oxygen cylinder would be required, considering the practice’s layout, and reviewed the need for more frequent scenario training for staff, to cover different medical emergencies.

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. The management of fire safety was mostly effective, and fire exits were clear and well signposted. However, the practice had not actioned all recommendations from the fire risk assessment which had been completed by an external company in 2021. Emergency lighting had not been fitted near the main entrance, as advised by the fire risk assessment. Smoke alarms were being tested monthly and not weekly. Following our inspection, the practice made arrangements for an additional emergency light to be fitted near the main entrance in January 2025 and commenced weekly smoke alarm testing. All staff had received fire marshal training on 15 October 2024 and staff we spoke with had good knowledge on what to do in the event of a fire. The practice had systems for the safe handling and prescribing of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and following feedback from the inspection team, a log was introduced to monitor and track their use . Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council (GDC) and had appropriate professional indemnity cover on employment. Following feedback from the inspection team, the practice implemented systems to assure themselves that clinical staff still had appropriate indemnity and remained registered with the GDC. Newly appointed staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction. Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient staffing levels. They demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Improvements were required to ensure that trainee dental nurses and the receptionist had also received safeguarding training at a level appropriate to their role. This training was completed immediately following our inspection. All staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children. The practice had arrangements to ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, 1-to-1 meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance. Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. We observed use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments. Following feedback from the inspection team, the practice ensured that decontaminated instruments were aseptically wrapped immediately after removal from the autoclave. We saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed. The practice had effective procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment. The practice had protocols to ensure effective cleaning and safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions. 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.