Eastcote Dental Practice

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 some processes to identify and manage risks and staff we spoke with were able to describe these to us. Improvements were needed to the systems in place for assessing and mitigating the risks associated with fire. The practice had some systems in place for the management of risks associated with fire. Fire extinguishers were regularly serviced, the practice had systems in place for the periodic in-house testing of the fire safety equipment and fire evacuation drills were being carried out. A fire risk assessment dated 2012 was made available for review. This was not completed by a person who had the qualifications, skills, competence and experience to do so. In addition, the risk assessment did not include considerations to the size of the premises to establish the appropriate fire detection and warning systems, the needs of vulnerable people and staff fire safety training requirements.

Following the on-site assessment the provider told us that they had booked an external fire risk assessment for 27 March 2025 and an action plan would be formulated based on the findings of that assessment.

Emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year.

Staff were also encouraged to participate in medical emergency scenario 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 equipment in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

The practice had some arrangements to ensure the safety of the X-ray equipment and the required radiation protection information was available.

On the day of assessment, the provider could not demonstrate that all recommendations made in the performance survey reports for the 3 X-Ray units were actioned to ensure safe operation of the radiation equipment. Following the on-site assessment the provider told us that they had contacted their Radiation Protection Advisor and following their advice, settings on the x-ray equipment have been altered to acceptable levels.

The practice had some systems for appropriate and safe management of medicines. Improvements could be made to ensure NHS prescription pads were kept securely at all times, and there was an effective log was in place to monitor and track their use.

The practice had implemented systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient and staff safety. This included sharps safety and lone working. We discussed with the provider the advantages of ensuring that all members of the dental team, including the receptionists, were able to recognise the signs and symptoms of sepsis and triage patients correctly if needed. Following our on-site assessment the provider submitted evidence to show that staff had completed sepsis training and sepsis prompts had been displayed in all treatment rooms.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedures that broadly reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff, including agency or locum staff. Improvements could be made to ensure evidence of conduct in previous employment was requested at the point of employment where required.

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

The practice had some arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. On the day of assessment, not all members of staff had completed training in autism and learning disability awareness, safeguarding, fire safety and mental capacity. In response to our feedback the provider submitted evidence to show that all staff had now completed training in these topics.

Improvements could be made to ensure the practice kept contemporaneous records of the role specific structured induction newly appointed staff had received.

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 they knew how to escalate safeguarding concerns within the practice and externally. On the day of assessment safeguarding information was not immediately accessible to staff and it was not up to date. Following the assessment the provider submitted evidence to show that updated safeguarding information had now been displayed across the practice.

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, 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.

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 of hazardous waste. On the day of assessment, the clinical waste bin used to store clinical waste awaiting collection was not locked, and it was stored in an area accessible to the public. Following the on-site assessment the provider submitted evidence to show that they had ordered a lockable replacement bin.

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.