We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 2 December 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

Archangel Clinic Limited is located in Westminster and provides NHS and private dental services. Services provided include cosmetic dentistry and general dentistry.

The opening hours for the practice were Monday – Friday 9am to 6pm.

The premises consist of two treatment rooms, a decontamination room, a waiting area and reception area.

The practice comprises of five dentists, three nurses, a practice manager and a receptionist.

.

The principal dentist 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.

During the inspection we asked patients to complete CQC comment cards. We received feedback from four patients. The patients who provided feedback were positive about the care and treatment they received at the practice. They told us they were involved in all aspects of their care and found the staff to be caring and helpful and they were treated with care, dignity and respect.

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 current 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.
• Staff were trained in and there was appropriate equipment for them to respond to medical emergencies.
• 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.

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

• Review the protocol for completing accurate, complete and detailed records relating to employment of staff. This includes making appropriate notes of verbal reference taken and ensuring recruitment checks, including references, are suitably obtained and recorded.
• Review staff awareness of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and ensure all staff are aware of their responsibilities under the Act as it relates to their role.
• Review the practice’s audit protocols of various aspects of the service, such as radiography and dental care records at regular intervals to help improve the quality of service. Practice should also check all audits have documented learning points and the resulting improvements can be demonstrated.
• 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).

People who use the service were not available for interview during our visit. There were questionnaires and other information that people had completed. In the questionnaires provided by the clinic, they told us they were satisfied with the treatment they had received and manner in which it was provided. The procedure for consultation and treatment had been explained to them as well as any fees charged for private treatments. They were also told about any risks that might arise from the treatments available. They felt treated with dignity, respect and had received consultations and treatment in private.

They did not comment on the clinic safeguarding or infection control systems. They did tell us they thought the clinic was kept clean and tidy.