Daisy Lea Dental

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.

The practice had processes to identify and manage risks and staff we spoke with were able to describe these to us. Staff felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and this was reflected in our findings.

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 equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

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

Emergency medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Emergency equipment was not being checked as effectively as the medicines. As a result, we found some items missing or expired. The practice took immediate action during the assessment to order these items. An effective system of checks of medical emergency equipment and medicines should be in place taking into account the guidelines issued by the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the General Dental Council. The practice manager confirmed this would be actioned.

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

A fire risk assessment was in place and recommendations had been actioned. However, we noted staff did not carry out monthly checks of emergency lighting or fire extinguishers, and annual testing of the emergency lighting system was not carried out. Evidence was sent after the assessment confirming annual testing was now booked. Staff participated in fire drills. Fire exits were clear and well signposted.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff.

The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover.

Newly appointed staff had an appropriate role specific structured induction. However, we noted that inductions were not documented for clinicians. This was discussed with the manager who confirmed this would be addressed.

Staff we spoke with had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. They told us that there were sufficient staffing levels. They demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding and were aware of how safeguarding information could be accessed. Staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.

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

There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. Staff discussed their learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development during annual appraisals, 1-to-1 meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions.

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.

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.

We observed use of personal protective equipment and the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance.

The practice should improve the practice’s sharps procedures to ensure the practice is in compliant with the Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013. The practice sharps assessment did not include the risk from the range of sharps in use, and how these were managed. We were not assured that arrangements were in place to seek advice and follow-up treatment in the event of a sharps injury. After the assessment the manager confirmed this had been addressed and information provided to staff. 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 staff carried out regular testing and monitoring of water quality. However, staff were not aware that dental unit waterline bottles should not be removed at the end of the day unless refilling or cleaning in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

The judgement for Medicines optimisation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.