Patrick Mcanerney

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 most risks; staff we spoke with were able to describe these to us. Staff felt confident that risks were well managed at the practice, and the reporting of risks was encouraged. Most emergency equipment and medicines were available and checked in accordance with national guidance. Staff could access these in a timely way. However, the medical emergency kit did not contain portable suction as recommended by the Resuscitation Council UK. In addition, while the service had 2 automatic injection devices containing adrenaline to treat allergic emergencies, the service did not have additional adrenaline ampoules. Current guidance recommends that intramuscular adrenaline should be given as a first line treatment for anaphylaxis and repeated at 5-minute intervals if there is no improvement in the patient’s condition. The service took immediate action and ordered a portable suction and additional adrenaline ampoules. Staff knew how to respond to a medical emergency and had completed training in emergency resuscitation and basic life support every year. 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. Fire exits were clear and well signposted. However, the service had not completed a fire risk assessment to ensure they were complaint with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. In addition, the service had not completed portable appliance testing (PAT) of electrical appliances. Following feedback, the service sent evidence that a fire risk assessment and PAT testing had been arranged for 15 November 2024. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out.

The practice comprised of a small team of 4 staff members. The practice did not use agency or locum staff. The practice did not have a recruitment policy. Following feedback, the practice provided evidence of a recruitment policy which reflected relevant legislation, to help them employ suitable staff should the need arise in the future. The practice ensured clinical staff were qualified, registered with the General Dental Council and had appropriate professional indemnity cover. The provider ensured clinical staff completed continuing professional development required for their registration with the General Dental Council. The practice had some arrangements to ensure staff training was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. However, we found that safeguarding training for the dental hygienist was overdue. This was completed immediately following feedback from the inspection team. There were effective processes to support and develop staff with additional roles and responsibilities. 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. Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued, and they were proud to work in the practice. Staff discussed their training needs during 1 to 1 meetings, practice team meetings and ongoing informal discussions. They also discussed learning needs, general wellbeing and aims for future professional development.

The practice had infection control procedures that reflected published guidance. This included procedures to reduce the risk of Legionella, or other bacteria, developing in water systems, in line with a risk assessment. Improvements were required to ensure that dirty and clean areas were clearly marked within the treatment rooms and cotton wool rolls were stored within dispensers or closed containers. These measures were rectified immediately. The practice had cleaning procedures and schedules to ensure effective cleaning. We observed the decontamination of used dental instruments, which aligned with national guidance. Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated knowledge and awareness of infection prevention and control processes. The equipment in use was maintained and serviced as per manufacturers’ instructions. Improvements were required to ensure that weekly vacuum tests were performed on the autoclave. These tests were introduced immediately following feedback from the inspection team. We saw, and staff confirmed that single use items were not reprocessed. Staff followed infection control principles, including the use of personal protective equipment, and safely segregated and disposed of hazardous waste. The practice did not have a sharps injury poster for staff to follow in case of a sharp’s injury. Following feedback, we saw the practice had purchased a sharps injury poster which included contact details of the nearest occupational health department. 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.