We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 29 April 2016 to ask the practice the following key questions: Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

‏ 56 Knightsbridge Court Dental is located in the London Borough of Westminster and provides private dental services. The demographic of the practice is mainly working professionals and people who live in the local area.

The staff structure of the practice comprises of three dentists and four dental nurse. The practice was open 9-5pm Monday to Friday.

Facilities within the practice include two treatment rooms, a dedicated decontamination room and a waiting area.

One of the dentists was the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the practice is run.

Before the inspection we sent Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards to the practice for patients to complete to tell us about their experience of the practice. We received feedback from 33 patients. The feedback we received for patients gave a positive view of the services the practice provides. All of the patients commented that the quality of care was good.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 29 April 2016 as part of our planned inspection of all dental practices. The inspection took place over one day and was carried out by a lead inspector and a dental specialist adviser.

Our key findings were:

• There were effective processes in place to reduce and minimise the risk and spread of infection.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned in line with best practice guidance such as from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).Patients were involved in their care and treatment planning.
• There was appropriate equipment for staff to undertake their duties and equipment was well maintained.
• Patients told us that staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect.
• Patients indicated that they felt they were listened to and that they received good care from a helpful and caring practice team.
• There were processes in place for patients to give their comments and feedback about the service including making complaints and compliments.
• Governance arrangements were in place and there was a clear vision for the smooth running of the practice.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Review the practice’s arrangements for receiving and responding to patient safety alerts, recalls and rapid response reports issued from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and through the Central Alerting System (CAS), as well as from other relevant bodies such as, Public Health England (PHE).
• Review the protocols for obtaining and maintaining accurate, complete and detailed records relating to staff employed for the purpose of carrying on the regulated activities, giving due regard to current legislation and guidance.Review the practice’s sharps procedures giving due regard to the Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013
• Review the practice's protocols for completion of dental records giving due regard to guidance provided by the Faculty of General Dental Practice regarding clinical examinations and record keeping.

• Review availability of medicines and equipment to manage medical emergencies giving due regard to guidelines issued by the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the General Dental Council (GDC) standards for the dental team.

We spoke with two dental patients who had both used the practice for some years. They confirmed their satisfaction with the service. One said that 'I trust this dentist. I travel some distance to come here because I know I will not be pushed to have treatment I cannot afford". Another patient said "the dentist is very sympathetic", and "he is very good with children".

All new patients completed a medical form before receiving treatment. After a dental examination the dentist would explain the different treatment options, their risks and benefits of the options and the likely costs.

The practice had effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff had been trained in infection control and for emergency situations. Decontamination of instruments was undertaken safely by the dental nurses. On the day of inspection the practice was clean and well maintained.

The dental nurses and dentists had attended training on core subjects such as first aid and basic life support as well as more specialist dental courses.

The practice had systems to review and monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. This included seeking feedback from patients using the service. Regular audits were carried out on infection control, radiation, and decontamination.