Paragondental

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. Whilst there are issues to be addressed, the impact of our concerns relates to the governance and the oversight of the risks, rather than a patient safety risk.

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 demonstrated an open culture in relation to people’s safety and staff felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice. However, this was not always reflected in our findings.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available, and staff could access these in a timely way. On the day of the assessment, we found that emergency kit checks were done monthly instead of weekly, as recommended. The seizure medication was not in the correct form, and the fridge storing low blood sugar medication was not monitored daily. After the assessment, we received evidence that weekly checks, daily temperature monitoring, and the correct seizure medication had been implemented.

Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

Staff providing treatment to patients under sedation had also completed immediate life support training.

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 most equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions. On the day of the assessment, we saw that the spare steriliser had not received servicing to ensure it was in good working order. Immediately after the assessment we were sent evidence that the practice was in the process of arranging servicing of the steriliser.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment, and most of the required radiation protection information was available. We saw that the annual performance checks for the hand-held X-ray unit and cone beam computed tomography unit (CBCT) were last completed in 2022 which meant they had lapsed. We received evidence that a further performance test had been arranged for 1 April 2025.

The management of fire safety was not always effective.

We saw that there were outstanding electrical works following a fire? risk assessment completed in 2022. Servicing of the smoke alarms and emergency lighting systems had been arranged for 21 March 2025.Improvements were needed to change the frequency of in-house testing of the smoke alarms from monthly to weekly, to implement in-house testing of the emergency lighting and to undertake regular fire evacuation drills. Following our feedback, we saw that logs to record these tests had been implemented.

Fire exits were clear and well signposted.

The practice had ineffective systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. On the day of the assessment, we were not provided with evidence that the practice kept a record of the stock of medicines at the practice. NHS prescription pads were kept in a locked cupboard, however, the practice did not have a system in place to monitor and track their use to enable them to identify any that were lost or unaccounted for. Immediately after the assessment we were provided with evidence that a log of medicines and prescription pads in the practice had been implemented.

The practice had a recruitment policy in line with legislation to help them employ suitable staff. However, their procedures did not follow this. In particular, evidence of satisfactory conduct in previous employment for staff had not been obtained prior to employment. In addition, the provider could not provide evidence that all clinical staff members had in date professional indemnity cover at the time of the assessment.

The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council.

Newly appointed staff had an informal induction. Following our feedback the practice told us that they would be implementing a structured induction program for new employees.

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient levels of staff on duty at all times. They demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Staff knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns within the practice and externally.

The practice had arrangements to ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals.

Processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities were not always effective. There were limited opportunities for staff to discuss their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development through 1-to-1 meetings and ongoing informal discussions. Improvements were required to provide staff with an annual appraisal.

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, which aligned with national guidance. 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 and current guidance.

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.