Synergy Dental Clinic Liverpool Ltd

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 were encouraged to participate 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. However, these were not effective.

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 and maintained and serviced according to manufacturers’ instructions. The practice ensured the facilities were maintained in accordance with regulations.

A fire safety risk assessment was carried out in line with the legal requirements. The management of fire safety was effective.

Improvements were needed to ensure any recommendations made during the maintenance and servicing of the X-ray equipment were acted on, this included the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) equipment. Evidence of the action taken to mitigate the risks, some of which were initially identified in November 2021, was not accessible for review on the day. Immediately after the assessment the practice obtained assurances from their radiation protection advisor that some actions had been completed. However, we were not assured all risks to patients and staff had been mitigated.

The practice had risk assessments to minimise the risk that could be caused from substances that are hazardous to health. Improvements were needed to ensure the risk assessments contained remedial or first aid actions for use in the event of an incident. Improvements were also needed to the organisation of the information so it is easily accessible in the event of an incident.

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. We discussed that changes should be made to the auditing protocols to ensure these would drive improvement.

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 enjoyed working in the practice.

Staff discussed their training needs during annual appraisals, during clinical discussions, 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.

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. Improvements were needed to ensure important checks were carried out for all staff at the point of recruitment. We were told risk assessments would be undertaken when there were delays in receiving a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. We noted from the records we were shown that these risk

assessments had not consistently been carried out at the point of recruitment.

The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council. The practice had not sought assurance that appropriate indemnity cover was available for all clinical staff.

The practice had ineffective arrangements to monitor staff training to ensure it was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. Protocols were in place to request training certificates from staff. However, if this was not provided, there was no evidence this was followed up. Training records were not available for all staff members on the day of the assessment.

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 aligned with national guidance.

The practice had infection control procedures which on the whole, 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.

The practice had procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment, carried out in July 2024; however, improvements were needed. We were shown monthly water temperature monitoring records that indicated throughout 2024, temperatures at some outlets, were outside the recommended parameters as detailed in their risk assessment. Records were not available to demonstrate that action had been taken to mitigate the risk. In addition, there was no evidence all recommendations made in the risk assessment had been actioned.

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.