A mixed dental practice reported that none of its employed dental nurses or reception staff had left since it became an accredited Living Wage employer, following an initial pay uplift costing £26,000 a year.
The case features in a new report, compiled by researchers at Middlesex University, which makes a case for adoption of the voluntary Real Living Wage in London primary care settings such as general dental practice. The hourly rate is set at £14.80 per hour in 2026, soon to rise to £15.45, compared to the legal minimum wage of £12.71 for those aged 21 and over.
Pearly Whites in Fulham implemented an initial annual pay uplift costing £26,000 to become an accredited Living Wage employer. This includes employer National Insurance and pension costs as well as base salaries. It reported:
- No turnover among directly employed staff since Living Wage accreditation
- Reduced recruitment costs and agency dependency
- Nearly doubled business turnover.
Managing director Grant Goodstein said becoming a Living Wage employer was ‘one of the best business decisions we’ve made’. He told Dentistry: ‘Good dental nurses are hard to find, and they know it. In London, a nurse can walk into a new job next week, so practices end up competing for the same small pool of people. That is what drives turnover in dentistry.
‘Paying the London Living Wage is the simplest way we’ve found to take ourselves out of that cycle. Since we were accredited, not one of our employed dental nurses or reception team has left.’
What are the potential benefits of implementing a Living Wage?
‘Losing a nurse costs far more than people think,’ Grant explained. ‘There’s recruitment, agency cover, and training someone new.’
He also pointed to the impact that a happy workforce can have on the patient experience. He said: ‘Patients recognise and appreciate a consistent, happy and motivated team. Many people are nervous about the dentist, and being greeted by the same faces every visit makes a real difference. Since accreditation, our business performance has skyrocketed, and so has patient satisfaction.’
The report frames Living Wage implementation as an investment rather than an added cost. It notes that it requires leadership commitment, budgeting for annual rate rises, transparent communication, and an ability to make accreditation visible in recruitment and stakeholder communications.
One potential drawback highlighted in the report is pay compression, whereby the difference in wages between higher and lower ranking staff decreases. Suggested responses include redesigning all roles, simplifying pay structures, and using graduated percentage increases so lower-paid staff receive larger relative uplifts. The report also stresses the importance open communication with employees if pay practices change.
While it acknowledges the financial constraints faced by practices, the report calls for the Living Wage to become a normal part of primary care employment.
Create a free account for unlimited access — plus the Dentistry Bulletin delivered to your inbox.
