Parkway Dental Care

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.

Basic life support training plus patient assessment, airway management techniques and automated external defibrillator training was completed by staff. Staff also shared examples of when they participated in medical emergency scenario training.

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 in their original packaging 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 safety equipment was serviced and well maintained.

Processes

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 written fire safety risk assessment was not available when we inspected. Following the inspection, this was provided. We reviewed the findings of the risk assessment which recommended the installation of adequate emergency lighting and a fire alarm system. The providers told us that they were already in discussion with their builders and all highlighted actions will be remedied in the recommended timeframe of 3 months. At the time of the inspection, we saw that the provider had fire-fighting equipment including fire extinguishers which received annual service.

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 dental hygienists worked without chairside support, and we saw that the provider had ensured lone-working risk assessments were in place to support this. However, we found that the risk assessments could be improved in detailing what to do in the instances of a medical emergency, aggressive/threating patients or other untoward events.

The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

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 annual appraisals / 1 to 1 meetings / during clinical supervision/ practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development.

Staff interviewed knew how to recognise signs of abuse in children, young people and adults whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. They were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.

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. At the time of the inspection, we noted that the visiting dentist indemnity did not include implants.

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.

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 by staff. An up-to-date pre-acceptance audit confirmed waste produced by the practice was handled and disposed of safely and responsibly.

We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments aligned with national guidance.

Processes

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.