When we visited the practice on 23 July 2014, we found patients were not fully protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not always been followed. We set a compliance action in respect of this. We received an action plan which set out what actions were to be taken, to achieve compliance.

During this inspection we found the practice had taken effective action and achieved compliance.

Staff training and briefing had been undertaken to remind staff of good hand hygiene practices. We found staff were not wearing jewellery to comply with the practice hand hygiene policy.

The processes to ensure the water lines supplying water to dental equipment were free from debris had been updated. The current procedures we reviewed met best practice guidance.

We observed staff following current guidance when cleaning the surgery room between patient treatments.

In May 2014 we received information that required us to review how the practice followed hygiene and infection control guidance. When we visited the practice in May 2013 we did not look at this aspect of the service. During this visit we spoke with two dental nurses, two dentists and the practice manager. We observed the practice and staff at work during this inspection. It was not necessary to speak with patients.

We found the practice was clean and followed most hygiene and infection control guidance. Checks were made to ensure appropriate standards of cleanliness were maintained. We saw staff followed the protocols for decontaminating dental instruments.

We saw guidance to assist staff in using protective equipment and in washing their hands effectively was displayed.

Some processes involved in the cleaning of surgery rooms were not being followed in accordance with the practice protocols. The practice had carried out an infection control audit but this had not identified some matters which required attention. For example, dental unit water lines were not being flushed through between treatments.

People told us how they were treated by staff. One person said: “They are very respectful and friendly.” We saw information in the practice leaflet and displayed in the waiting area informed people access to interpretation services was available. The service employed both female and male dentists. This showed the service had taken reasonable steps to meet the needs of people using the service.

People we spoke with told us what happened before treatment was carried out. One person said: “We had to fill a form which asked what medications we were on.” All patient records viewed had completed medical histories. This showed the service assessed people’s needs before carrying out treatment.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of what safeguarding meant, how to recognise signs and who to report them to. This showed staff were able to recognise abuse and knew what to do if it were seen or suspected.

We looked at staff member's files and saw they had been doing the required hours of continual professional development (CPD) training. This showed staff members were supported to meet the professional standards which are a condition of their ability to practise.

We saw completed questionnaires that asked people if they were seen for their appointment on time and if they were aware of who to contact should they wish to make a complaint. This showed the service sought the views of people and those acting on their behalf.