Inspire Orthodontic Centre

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 management of the availability of emergency equipment and medicines required improvement to ensure national guidance was followed.

An automated external defibrillator (AED). was not available. All clinical areas should have immediate access to an AED.

The medical emergency kit contained intravenous (IV) diazepam. This is not the recommended medicine to treat a seizure.

Buccal midazolam, portable suction, self-inflating bags (adult and child) and an oxygen facemask with reservoir and tubing were not available.

Glucagon was stored in a fridge together with foodstuffs. The temperature of the fridge used to store the glucagon was not monitored to ensure it remained within 2-8 degrees Celsius range.

Emergency medicines and equipment was check monthly. Checks should be weekly in line with Resuscitation Council UK guidelines.

The premises were visibly clean, well maintained, and public areas were free from clutter.

Hazardous substances were not clearly labelled or stored safely. Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) risk assessment and safety data sheets were not available for every COSHH applicable substance used at the practice.

Sanitary bins were not available in the practice. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 specify that all businesses must provide a suitable means for disposing of sanitary products in each female toilet.

The practice had processes to identify and manage risks, but improvement was needed.

A current three yearly performance test certificate was not available for the X-ray machine.

A fire risk assessment was not carried out in line with the legal requirements. The management of fire safety was ineffective. Weekly fire alarm manual call point (MCP) tests were not carried out. The fire alarm system was inspected annually. It should be inspected at least every six months by a competent person.

Monthly emergency lighting tests were not carried out. Emergency lighting was not subject to an annual full functional battery test by a competent person. We noted that 2 emergency lights did not function when tested.

We were told that a five yearly electrical installation condition (EICR) test was booked to take place the week following our visit. There was no evidence that this had been carried out at the required intervals prior to our visit.

Evidence to confirm the testing of electronic portable appliances was not available.

Staff stated they felt respected, supported, and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice.

They told us that there were sufficient staffing levels.

Staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.

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

There were 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 ongoing informal discussions.

Evidence to confirm that appraisals were carried out for all staff was not available.

The practice had a recruitment policy and procedure to help them employ suitable staff, but checks had not been carried out in accordance with relevant legislation.

Records of Hepatitis B antibody levels for one clinical staff member were not available. Improvements could be made to take action to ensure that all clinical staff have adequate immunity for vaccine preventable infectious diseases.

The practice had systems in place to ensure all staff had completed training as per recommended national guidance, but improvement was needed to ensure that nonclinical staff completed the required training.

A lone worker risk assessment was not available for “Out of Hours” cleaner. The provider took immediate action and provided assurance this shortfall has been addressed.

Decontamination equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions.

The practice had protocols to ensure safe segregation and disposal of hazardous waste. We noted that the external clinical waste bin was not tethered to a fixed point to prevent unauthorised removal.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance, but improvement was needed.

Staff received appropriate training but did not demonstrate their knowledge of infection prevention and control processes.

We observed use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the manual cleaning of used dental instruments, did not align with national guidance. Specifically, manual cleaning protocols were not followed, and PPE was not worn by the staff member seen carrying out decontamination tasks.

The frequency of infection prevention and control audits did not align with current infection control guidance.

A legionella risk assessment was not available. Evidence of appropriate training to effectively manage the risks associated with Legionella bacteria in water systems was not available for the person responsible for legionella.

Colour coded cleaning equipment was not separated when stored which increased the risk of cross infection.

Oversight of cleaning standards could not be evidenced.

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