We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 2 July 2015 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

Chelsea and Fulham Dentist is located in Fulham, West London. The practice provides private dental services and treats both adults and children. The practice offers a wide range of dental services including general, cosmetic, restorative and preventive dentistry. The practice also offered a dental implant and orthodontic service provided by visiting specialists.

The staff structure of the practice comprised two principal dentists, two trainee dental nurses, and two visiting specialists.

The practice is open Monday from 9.00am to 8.00pm and Tuesday to Friday from 9.00am to 6.00pm.

One of the principal dentists is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The inspection took place over one day and was carried out by a CQC inspector and a dentist specialist advisor.

We received 21 CQC comment cards completed by patients. No patients attended the practice during our inspection visit as it was a non-clinical day. Patients who completed comment cards were very positive about the care they received from the practice. They were complimentary about the friendly and caring attitude of the staff.

Our key findings were:

• 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) and the Faculty of General Dental Practice (FGDP).

• Equipment, such as the air compressor, autoclave, oxygen cylinder, Automated External Defibrillator (AED) and X-ray equipment had all been checked for effectiveness and had been regularly serviced.

• The practice ensured staff maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients including mandatory training and annual appraisal.

• Patients reported that they felt they were listened to and that they received good care from a helpful and respectful practice team.

• The practice had implemented clear procedures for managing comments, concerns or complaints, proactively sought feedback from patients and staff and acted on it to improve the service provided.

• There was a clear vision for the practice and staff were well supported by the management team.

• There were governance arrangements in place and the practice effectively used audits to monitor and improve the quality of care provided.

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

• Arrange training in safeguarding of vulnerable adults for staff who have not received this.
• Arrange for trainee dental nurses to receive child protection training to supplement training received in their dental nurse training course.
• Review its recruitment procedures to ensure, records are kept of both written and verbal references sought prior to appointment.
• Arrange for the employment contracts of the two visiting specialists to be placed on their staff files.