The updated Safeguarding children and young people & children and young people in care: Competencies for health care staff (Intercollegiate Guidance) has been published. The update appears to have been released with relatively little visibility or communication, having previously been flagged on the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) website as under review with an anticipated publication timeframe of Spring 2025.
Alongside this, the update introduces changes to where the guidance is hosted and how it can be accessed. Historically, it could be found on the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) website and was widely referenced as a central point of access; however, the latest update now sits on a separate, standalone safeguarding children website, rather than the RCN site.
In contrast, the adult safeguarding intercollegiate guidance continues to be hosted on the RCN website, creating an unexpected split in how safeguarding guidance is accessed.
The way in which the update has been published, alongside changes to where the guidance is hosted, has prompted questions across a number of healthcare sectors, including dentistry, particularly regarding safeguarding training requirements. In the absence of prominent sector‑wide communication about these changes, some uncertainty has naturally arisen as practices and organisations work to interpret and apply the revised guidance.
Why This Feels Familiar
This is not the first time an intercollegiate guidance update has prompted discussion within dentistry.
The 2024 adult safeguarding update also raised questions, particularly around the practical distinction between Level 2 and Level 3 training. While the adult guidance raised points for clarification, it ultimately provided more detail on how organisations should interpret the levels of safeguarding training.
The updated safeguarding children guidance introduces similar wording that requires interpretation, particularly for the dental sector, where contact with children can vary significantly between roles and dental practices.
How Safeguarding Training Has Traditionally Worked in Dentistry
For many years, dental practices have applied safeguarding training in a clear, proportionate, and well-established way:
- Level 1 – non‑clinical team members
- Level 2 – most clinical team members
- Level 3 – safeguarding lead roles and clinicians working predominantly with children or in special care dentistry
This approach has consistently:
- Aligned with previous intercollegiate guidance
- Reflected wider safeguarding frameworks
- Been routinely accepted during healthcare regulatory inspections
What the Updated Guidance Says
The revised guidance states that:
“Groups of staff whose role may span levels 2 and 3 depending on area of work, site and duties include… dental services.”
This acknowledges that dentistry is not automatically aligned to a single safeguarding level, and that safeguarding competence should be tailored to individual circumstances that reflect the:
- Role and responsibilities
- Level of contact with children
- Safeguarding responsibility
However, the guidance does not provide clear examples of when Level 2 training may be sufficient and when Level 3 would be more appropriate.
Understanding Where the Confusion Arises
The guidance also states that level 3 training applies to:
“All health care staff who deliver either a clinical service to children and young people.”
Read in isolation, this implies that any clinician who treats children would require Level 3 safeguarding training, even if treating children makes up only a small part of the role. This would represent a significant shift from how safeguarding training has traditionally been applied in dentistry.
However, the acknowledgement that dental services may span Levels 2 and 3 creates confusion between overarching statements such as the above and practical application.
Taken together, this highlights the importance of proportionate interpretation rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
What Regulators Are Currently Expecting
Despite the ambiguity in wording, looking at current inspection activity helps provide useful reassurance:
- Evidence requested from dental practices by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) continues to ask for Level 1 and Level 2 safeguarding training, rather than expecting blanket Level 3 compliance
- A recent Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW) inspection report stated:
“All staff had completed safeguarding training to the required level, with some staff members having completed Level 3 training, which is considered best practice.”
This indicates that inspectors:
- Recognise Level 1 and Level 2 as meeting safeguarding requirements
- View Level 3 as best practice rather than a blanket minimum expectation
It is, however, important to note that for Safeguarding Leads, the expectation is to complete Level 3 training to ensure they can fully meet their responsibilities should a safeguarding concern arise.
What This Means for Dental Practices
Taking the guidance and current regulatory expectations into account, the position for dental practices remains reassuringly familiar:
- Level 1 remains appropriate for non-clinical roles with minimal patient contact
- Level 2 remains appropriate for the majority of clinical dental staff
- Level 3 continues to be best practice rather than a mandatory baseline, but is expected for safeguarding leads and clinicians who predominantly work with children and in special care dentistry
This is supported by:
- How dental safeguarding has historically been applied
- What regulators are currently requesting during inspections
- The guidance’s own recognition that dental services span multiple safeguarding levels
What Practices Should Do Now
Until further dental-specific clarification is issued, practices should:
- Continue applying safeguarding training in a proportionate, role-based way
- Align training levels to individual duties and likely exposure to children
- Ensure decisions are clearly documented
This approach supports effective safeguarding while ensuring teams remain appropriately trained and confident in their roles.
As with previous guidance updates, clear documentation and sensible decision‑making remain the most practical and defensible way forward.
For more compliance support, click here.
