Sample policy · Dental

Safeguarding policy (dental)

Statutory anchor: Regulation 13 (safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment), Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2936). · primary source

1. What the regulation says

Service users must be protected from abuse and improper treatment in accordance with this regulation. (Reg 13(1) (the headline duty))

Systems and processes must be established and operated effectively to prevent abuse of service users. (Reg 13(2) (prevention systems))

Systems and processes must be established and operated effectively to investigate, immediately upon becoming aware of, any allegation or evidence of such abuse. (Reg 13(3) (investigation systems))

A service user must not be deprived of their liberty for the purpose of receiving care or treatment without lawful authority. (Reg 13(5) (lawful authority for deprivation of liberty))

any behaviour towards a service user that is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (Reg 13(6)(a) (sexual offences))

ill-treatment (whether of a physical or psychological nature) of a service user, (Reg 13(6)(b) (ill-treatment))

theft, misuse or misappropriation of money or property belonging to a service user, or (Reg 13(6)(c) (theft / misuse / misappropriation))

neglect of a service user. (Reg 13(6)(d) (neglect))

The full text of the regulation is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2936/regulation/13. Where this policy and the regulation diverge, the regulation wins.

2. Plain-English summary

Service users must be protected from abuse and improper treatment. You need effective systems to prevent abuse, and effective systems to investigate any allegation or evidence of abuse as soon as you become aware of it. Care must not be provided in a way that discriminates, uses disproportionate control or restraint, is degrading, or significantly disregards the service user's needs. Service users cannot be deprived of their liberty without lawful authority.

3. Purpose

This policy sets out how the Practice identifies, records and responds to child and adult safeguarding concerns in a dental setting.

It covers dental neglect, domestic abuse, adults at risk, staff allegations, referral routing, staff training and record-keeping.

4. Scope

This policy applies to:

5. Roles and responsibilities

6. Definitions and duty

The Practice has a duty to act when staff suspect that a child or adult may be at risk of abuse, neglect or exploitation.

Staff do not investigate safeguarding concerns themselves. They record what they saw, heard or were told, and follow the Practice referral pathway.

The Practice verifies local referral routes with the local safeguarding children partnership, local authority adult safeguarding team, Local Authority Designated Officer and police before adopting this policy.

7. Dental neglect indicators in children

Dental neglect may be one sign of wider neglect. Staff consider safeguarding action where patterns include:

Staff record the clinical facts, the conversation and the action taken. Staff avoid judgemental language.

8. Domestic abuse disclosure pathway

Dental staff may see signs of domestic abuse during chairside conversations or examination.

When a patient discloses abuse, or staff suspect abuse, staff:

The Practice keeps local domestic abuse referral contacts with this policy.

9. Adult-at-risk indicators visible during dental treatment

Staff consider adult safeguarding where they identify:

The Practice records the concern and follows the local authority adult safeguarding route where the threshold appears met.

10. Referral routing

The Practice keeps a live referral sheet with:

Staff call emergency services immediately where there is immediate danger.

11. Staff allegations

Where a safeguarding allegation involves a member of staff, associate, locum, trainee or contractor, the Registered Manager:

No staff member investigates an allegation about themselves.

12. Training cadence

The Practice maps safeguarding training to staff role.

Verivius default levels are:

The Practice verifies exact training levels, frequency and provider requirements against local safeguarding partnership guidance, NHS contract requirements where applicable and current professional guidance before adoption.

13. Recording requirements

The safeguarding record should include:

Records are factual, contemporaneous and stored securely. Access is limited to staff who need it for safeguarding or governance purposes.

14. Links to registers and action tracking

15. Governance and audit

The Registered Manager reviews safeguarding records at least quarterly, or more often where risk requires it.

The review checks:

Review cadence: annual or on regulatory change, whichever sooner. Owner: Registered Manager.

16. Related policies in this pack

17. Related guidance

18. Sources and further reading

This template is based on CQC's guidance for providers and managers, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and other topic-specific legislation and guidance listed below. It is a starting point for adaptation, not a substitute for legal, clinical, HR, safeguarding or specialist professional advice.

19. When to seek further advice

Seek specialist advice where the issue involves serious harm, safeguarding, deprivation of liberty, restraint, children, professional misconduct, controlled drugs, radiation, termination of pregnancy, infection outbreak, water safety, employment dismissal, DBS barring referral, or regulatory enforcement.

20. Document control

Version Date Author Changes
v1.2 2026-07-21 Verivius (sample) Replaced the pending-guidance wording with current DHSC guidance on the 2026 Supreme Court judgment.
v1.1 2026-07-18 Verivius (sample) Added role ownership, evidence fields, register-to-action controls and related safeguarding artefacts.
v1 2026-06-10 Verivius (sample) Conformed to the Verivius policy standard; existing operational sections preserved and renumbered.

This sample policy template was issued by Verivius. It is a template, not a substitute for legal advice or the provider's own policy-development process. Where this template and live law or regulator guidance diverge, the live source wins.

What good looks like here

Written from an ex-CQC inspector's chair, but the point is safe, well-led care your team can stand behind. Each row shows what strong evidence looks like, what thin evidence looks like, and where the expectation comes from.

Dentistry sees a signal other services miss: repeated untreated pain, missed urgent appointments and oral hygiene that does not match a child's age or support needs are often the earliest visible edge of wider neglect. The mouth also carries injury, and a chairside appointment is one of the few moments a patient is alone with a clinician, away from a companion who has been answering for them. The risk in a dental setting is that contact is short and episodic, so the tooth gets treated, the patient is discharged, and nobody ever assembles the pattern across visits. A safeguarding record that holds the facts, the person's own words and the failed appointments is what turns six separate half-hour visits into a picture the next clinician or the local authority can act on. Get that right and a child in pain is seen sooner and an adult under pressure is asked the question. The evidence an inspector would want then falls out of the work rather than being assembled for them.

  1. A concern about a member of staff is escalated outside the Practice, and that person never investigates it themselves. The referral to the local authority and the statutory notification to CQC are separate decisions: the notification is owed on the abuse allegation itself, and making the local authority referral does not discharge it.

    Strong evidence: The staff-allegation record showing referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) for a child, or the local authority adult safeguarding team for an adult at risk, records preserved, police referral, statutory notification to CQC and General Dental Council (GDC) referral each considered as separate decisions, and the management decision recorded (section 11).

    Weak evidence: The file shows a phone call to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) with no date, no name of the person spoken to and no record of the advice given, or the local authority referral is treated as the end of the matter so the separate Care Quality Commission notification and General Dental Council referral questions are left blank or marked not applicable. Weaker still is a rota showing the implicated associate still on the treatment list with no recorded decision to leave them there, nothing to show records were preserved, or an internal note that the practice owner had a quiet word to establish the facts before deciding whether to escalate.

    A legal duty. This comes from legislation that applies to your service, so meeting it is not optional. The exact provision is cited beneath the badge.

    Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, reg 18(2)(e) (notify CQC of any abuse or allegation of abuse), with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 13(3) (systems to investigate immediately any allegation or evidence of abuse)

  2. Every concern is opened in the safeguarding register, even where the decision is that no external referral is needed. A concern judged below threshold on the day is often the one that makes sense of a pattern months later, and it only counts if someone can find it.

    Strong evidence: The safeguarding register with an entry opened for every concern regardless of the eventual referral decision, each carrying a named follow-up owner and review date (section 14).

    Weak evidence: The register holds only the concerns that were referred, so the below-threshold cases sit in a clinical note, a message thread or the safeguarding lead's memory and cannot be counted, themed or followed up. Look for a register that starts part way through the year, entries with a blank follow-up owner or review date, and the tell that no entry in it has ever closed with no external referral needed.

    Our recommended baseline. Not a legal or regulatory requirement, but a sensible standard we suggest where the rules leave the detail to you. Adapt it to your service.
  3. A referral goes to the correct external route, chosen from a live sheet rather than guessed, and an adult-at-risk concern is referred to the local authority adult safeguarding team where the Care Act 2014 section 42 threshold appears met. Where there is immediate danger, staff call emergency services rather than wait for the referral route to work.

    Strong evidence: The live referral sheet (local authority children's safeguarding or Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), local authority adult safeguarding, LADO, police, NHS safeguarding lead where the Practice holds an NHS contract, out-of-hours contact, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) mandatory-reporting route for known cases in under-18s where the duty applies) in section 10, and the adult-at-risk indicators recorded with the adult safeguarding route followed (section 9).

    Weak evidence: A referral sheet printed some time ago and never re-verified, where the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) number now reaches a general switchboard, the out-of-hours contact is missing, nobody can point to the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) mandatory-reporting route, and staff describe having rung the council rather than a named route. On the adult side, a concern showing coercion, unexplained injury or a companion answering for the patient is logged and monitored locally instead of being tested against the Care Act 2014 section 42 threshold and passed to the local authority adult safeguarding team, or an adult concern is sent to the children's route because that is the only number the team knows.

    Our recommended baseline. Not a legal or regulatory requirement, but a sensible standard we suggest where the rules leave the detail to you. Adapt it to your service.
  4. The safeguarding record captures facts, the person's own words and immediate action contemporaneously, not a tidied summary written later. Without the reference number, the body map where injury was visible and within clinical scope, and observation in place of interpretation, the colleague who picks the concern up next cannot chase it or say what was actually seen.

    Strong evidence: The safeguarding record fields (date and time, patient details, staff recording, facts observed, words used by patient or carer, body map or clinical notes where injury is visible and within scope, immediate action, advice received, referral made, reference number, follow-up owner, review date) stored securely with restricted access (section 13).

    Weak evidence: The entry is written up days later from memory and reads as interpretation rather than observation: mother seemed evasive, poor home care, child unkempt. Visible bruising is recorded as marks noted with no body map or clinical note, the patient's own words are replaced by a clinician's tidy summary, and there is no referral reference number, so nobody can chase what happened next. Weak too is a safeguarding note typed into the open clinical record where the whole team can read it, with nothing to show access was limited to those who need it.

    A legal duty. This comes from legislation that applies to your service, so meeting it is not optional. The exact provision is cited beneath the badge.

    Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 17(2)(c) (maintain securely an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record in respect of each service user)

  5. Governance review actually samples records and confirms external escalation happened, not a headline count. The point of the Registered Manager's review is to catch late recording or a referral sent to the wrong route while there is still time to put it right for the person concerned.

    Strong evidence: The at-least-quarterly Registered Manager review checking concerns were recorded promptly, referrals went to the right route, staff allegations were escalated outside the Practice, actions completed and training current (section 15).

    Weak evidence: The review is a headline count in the practice meeting minutes, for example safeguarding: three concerns, all referred, no issues, with no record numbers listed and no sign that anyone opened a file to check the referral actually left the practice. Watch for the same finding, such as late recording or a referral sent to the wrong route, appearing quarter after quarter with no completed action, and for reviews quietly skipped when the safeguarding lead or Registered Manager was away.

    Our recommended baseline. Not a legal or regulatory requirement, but a sensible standard we suggest where the rules leave the detail to you. Adapt it to your service.
  6. Safeguarding training is mapped to role and current, evidenced in the matrix rather than assumed uniform. A receptionist, a nurse and the safeguarding lead need different levels, and staff in direct patient contact or in the lead role without the level their role requires are the gap that shows when a concern actually arrives.

    Strong evidence: Training mapped by role (all staff, direct-patient-contact staff, and the safeguarding lead, Registered Manager and higher-risk clinicians), with levels, frequency and provider verified against local safeguarding partnership requirements and, where the Practice holds an NHS contract, NHS-contract requirements (section 12).

    Weak evidence: One matrix column marked safeguarding: yes, with certificates that carry no level and no date, so a receptionist, a nurse and the safeguarding lead all appear equally trained. Associates, locums and trainees are missing from the matrix altogether, the lead's higher-level training is years old with no refresher booked, and nobody has checked the levels against local safeguarding partnership or NHS contract requirements.

    Our recommended baseline. Not a legal or regulatory requirement, but a sensible standard we suggest where the rules leave the detail to you. Adapt it to your service.

Last verified 20 July 2026

Spotted something to improve?

These are sample templates, not the last word. If you would change a wording, or want to help us confirm a detail, tell us and we will look at it.

Related Verivius content

Want help adapting this to your service?

A Verivius consultant can read your adapted policy against the live regulation and your service shape. The work fits inside a Mock Inspection engagement or a shorter consulting brief. A 20-minute conversation is the fastest way to find out whether the fit is right.

Get started free

Free to start, no card. A 14-day trial when you subscribe.

Last reviewed 21 July 2026