The purpose of this inspection was to find out answers to five key questions. Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection when we sought information about people's experience and gained views from people who used the service, the staff who supported them and from looking at records.

We spoke with the provider (dentist), hygienist, dental nurse and practice manager along with, a trainee dental nurse. In addition we had the opportunity to ask five people who attended the practice during our visit, about their care and treatment.

Is the service caring?

We observed good relationships between the staff and people who attended for treatment and there was a friendly atmosphere. People spoke positively about the practice and the way that treatment was explained to them. They told us they gave consent for their care and treatment to proceed.

Is the service responsive?

The dental practice was open on four days each week. Appointments were available in the morning and early evening. The arrangements for out of hours and emergency appointments were made known to people through information in the practice and by recorded telephone messages.

Is the service safe?

People said they felt safe. They said this was because the practice was calm and the dentist always explained treatment and options to them. The provider had arrangements in place to monitor the quality of service provided.

Is the service effective?

There was one dentist, a dental hygienist and dental therapist to provide treatments. Where referral to another service provider was necessary this was done in line with the practice policy following consultation with the person. There were facilities for the taking of x-rays and responding to medical emergencies.

Is the service well led?

The provider was an established dentist with people who had attended the practice for many years. There were arrangements in place for staff training and appraisal.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We did not speak with people who used the service. The purpose of the visit was to follow up actions set at the inspection of the practice in January 2012.

We found that the actions relating to child protection and safeguarding vulnerable people and those in relation to infection control had been met.

We spoke with two people who used the practice and they told us they were very happy with the service provided. They felt they were given enough information about their treatment options and relevant fees as well as time to ask questions in order to make an informed decision. One person told us he brought his whole family and the dentist was “great” with the children. People told us the staff were friendly and treated them with respect and their privacy was maintained. .

One person we spoke with told us the staff were aware of their anxieties when visiting the dentist and did their best to alleviate them. All people we spoke with felt confident and comfortable with the practice staff.

We examined a sample of case records and saw they included medical histories and clear details of current treatments for the people concerned. We observed the contact details for emergency treatment were displayed in the reception area of the practice, and were told emergency appointments were always available. We saw people were given quotes in advance of treatment appointments with a break down of the costs and alternative treatment options for their consideration.

The practice had effective systems in place for the decontamination of instruments. Staff had been trained to follow infection prevention and control precautions.

The practice is situated on the first floor of the Christchurch medical centre. There was a shaft lift for disabled access to the practice. When in the practice all areas were on the same level.

People were not protected from abuse through regular training and awareness in protecting wulnerable adults, children and young people. Staff were not aware of how to protect people through the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.