This was a targeted inspection to follow-up on concerns that we raised about the way complaints were handled when at our last inspection of the practice on 09 September 2013. We did not seek specific feedback from people who used the service on this occasion.

We met with the registered manager who told us about the actions they had taken to improve the way that comments and complaints were managed by the practice. We also looked at the way complaints and feedback had been handled since our last inspection. We found that the new systems in place to deal with complaints promoted impartiality of investigation and ensured that people's views were responded to appropriately.

Patients were all positive about their experience of using this dental surgery. They told us that they always found the surgery to be clean and that staff were friendly. Patients told us that they felt fully involved in making decisions about their treatment and said that their dentist had given them sufficient information about the treatment options available in order to make an informed choice about their oral health.

We found that the practice maintained records about the treatment provided which included detailed letters to patients where treatments were complex or prolonged. Staff received regular training updates and were confident about their work. The practice had appropriate systems in place to manage emergencies and we saw evidence that equipment was routinely serviced and maintained.

The practice promoted good standards of infection control with designated staff to lead in this area. Appropriate systems were in place to ensure that re-useable equipment was appropriately cleaned and sterilised to reduce the risk of cross-contamination. Clinical staff maintained good standards of hygiene through the use of personal protective equipment and cleaning surgeries between patients.

Staff were recruited in accordance with legislative requirements which meant that patients could be assured that the people treating them had been appropriately checked and vetted.

We found that complaints were not always investigated impartially and actions taken to resolve issues had not been fully recorded. This meant that the practice could not evidence that all complaints were robustly handled.