We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 16 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

Dr Ishtaq Mohammed - Queens Park Health Centre is located in the London Borough of Westminster and provides NHS and private dental services.

The opening hours for the practice were 9.00am – 5.30pm Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and Friday and 9.00am to 2.00pm on Thursdays.

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

The practice comprises of a principal dentist and three dental nurse/receptionists. The principal dentist is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual registered person. 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 18 comment cards back from patients. We spoke with three patients and three members of staff on the day of the inspection. 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 its responsibilities as regards to the Control of Substance Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002 and, ensure all documentation is up to date and staff understand how to minimise risks associated with the use of and handling of these substances.
• Review the practice’s protocols for the use of rubber dam for root canal treatment giving due regard to guidelines issued by the British Endodontic Society

• Review availability of 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.

• Review the security of prescription pads in the practice and ensure there are systems in place to monitor and track their use.

• 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.

We were not able to speak to patients because none were available during our visit. We gathered evidence of patient experiences of the service by reviewing their feedback that was collected by the provider. We found that the majority of patients were satisfied with the overall quality of the service.