Dale Road Dental Clinic Also known as South Cliff Dental Group Shirley Dale

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. However, we identified improvements must be made to these processes.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked. Staff could access these in a timely way. The premises appeared clean, well maintained and free from clutter. We discussed the importance of ensuring hygiene products were available for staff and patients at the point of use, for example toilet paper. Improvements were needed to ensure hazardous substances were consistently stored safely. For example, we noted some domestic bleach was stored in an area which would be accessible to patients. 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 had some processes to ensure equipment was safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions, however these were not effective. However, historically there were gaps in the servicing of the compressor. In addition, we noted there was broken equipment that was being used, one that had been repaired with an elastic band.. The system for managing the risks associated with fire were not working effectively. A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. There had been both an external risk assessment in July 2020 and an internal review in November 2024. These risk assessment had not considered the fire risks in the basement area, where electrical equipment was stored. We noted there was no fire detection equipment and combustible products were stored there. Fire safety checks had recently been implemented since the new practice manager had started. Records were available to show these had been carried out in May 2024 but this was not part of a consistent approach. Records were not available to demonstrate that the emergency lighting had been serviced and no evidence of when the last emergency lighting service had been completed. 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 sepsis awareness and lone working. However, we noted the sharps risk assessment did not relate to systems which were used at the practice. The risk assessment referred to the use of traditional needles, when the practice were using safer sharps. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines.

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They were aware of the issue with regards to not having a dentist available to provide treatments which a dental therapist cannot. Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued. Although no staff member had been in position for more than a year, we were told that they would discuss their training needs during annual appraisals and ongoing informal discussions. 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.

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, we noted a sharps bin in a surgery had not been closed correctly posing a risk to staff if the bin was dropped. 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 demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes and we saw single use items were not reprocessed. 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. 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.