Slawomir Stobiecki Limited

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. Immediate life support training (or basic life support training plus patient assessment, airway management techniques and automated external defibrillator training) had not been completed by staff providing treatment to patients under sedation as per the guidelines published by The Intercollegiate Advisory Committee for Sedation in Dentistry in the document 'Standards for Conscious Sedation in the Provision of Dental Care 2020’. Following our feedback, we received evidence that the practice had made arrangements to ensure staff were trained to the appropriate level. 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 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 safety equipment was serviced and well maintained.

The practice ensured equipment was safe to use, maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. Improvements were required to ensure the facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations. In particular, there was no evidence that the gas safety checks had been carried out. During our assessment, the provider arranged a boiler service and gas safety check, and this was carried out the following day. A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. The management of fire safety was effective. We saw records to demonstrate that the fire safety equipment was serviced regularly, periodic in-house checks were carried out and the practice completed regular fire evacuation drills. However, some of the actions identified within the risk assessment in 2021 had not been carried out. Following our feedback, the provider took immediate action to address them. In particular, emergency light torches were positioned within the stairwell and arrangements made to improve the compartmentation within the decontamination room. The practice had arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available. This included cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). 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 practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out, but improvements were required to ensure the audits contained analysis and action plans.

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 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 should improve their recruitment -procedures to ensure accurate, complete and detailed records are maintained for all staff and that appropriate checks are completed prior to new staff commencing employment at the practice to reflect the relevant legislation. We noted that the recruitment policy was not always followed. In particular, some recruitment checks had not been carried out, in accordance with relevant legislation. Disclosure Barring Service (DBS) checks had not been carried out at the time of employment and references had not been obtained for 2 members of staff. Although we saw that clinical staff were vaccinated against Hepatitis B, evidence of immunity was not available for 6 members of staff. Following our inspection, we were provided with assurances that recruitment procedures would be improved, and all staff records would be collated and stored effectively using a newly established compliance portal. 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.

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 broadly aligned with national guidance. However, the practice should improve its infection control procedures and protocols taking into account the guidelines issued by the Department of Health in the Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices and having regard to The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice about the prevention and control of infections and related guidance’. In particular we observed that sterilized dental handpieces were not wrapped before storage. Following our feedback, staff addressed this issue.

The practice had infection control procedures which broadly 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.