Olive 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 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 not all available or checked in accordance with national guidance. We discussed this with the provider who confirmed following our assessment that the missing items were replaced and weekly checks have been implemented.. 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, and fire extinguishers were serviced and well maintained.

The practice systems to ensure equipment and facilities were safe to use and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions were not effective. A fire safety risk assessment had not been undertaken. There was limited evidence that fire safety equipment, such as smoke alarms were sufficient or checked in line the legal requirements. Fire drills were not undertaken regularly. We were not assured that the management of fire safety was effective. Immediately following this assessment, the provider confirmed they had commissioned an external professional fire risk assessment to review fire safety measures at the practice. Not all records were available to demonstrate the servicing and maintenance of X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was not in place. Immediately following the assessment, the provider confirmed they had decommissioned all the X-ray equipment and had taken immediate action to ensure the servicing and maintenance was completed. The practice had some systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. This included sharps safety. There was scope to ensure risk assessments for sepsis awareness and lone working were undertaken. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. We noted an antimicrobial prescribing audit had been undertaken, but this was not dated and there was no action plan. The practice had risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health.

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 informal discussions. Staff told us they could not remember the last time they had a formal appraisal meeting. However, staff told us that they could discuss learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development informally with the provider. Following this assessment, we were assured that appraisals would be scheduled going forward. 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, including for agency or locum 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.

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 mostly aligned with national guidance. We noted regular tests of the ultra-sonic bath were not undertaken. Before we left the assessment, we saw the practice had put in place the log book and tests for these checks. We noted loose items in treatment room drawers and local anaesthetics cartridges were not stored in their blister packs. We discussed these with the provider and were assured these would be reprocessed and pouched going forward.

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.