We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 1 December 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

Glumangate dental practice is situated over three floors of premises close to Chesterfield town centre. The ground and first floor are accessible to patients. The practice was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2011. The practice provides regulated dental services to patients in the Chesterfield area of north Derbyshire. The practice provides both NHS and private dental treatment, with approximately 70% being NHS patients. Services provided include general dentistry, dental hygiene, teeth whitening, crowns and bridges, and root canal treatment.

The practice is open Mondays: 9:00 am to 5:45 pm; Tuesdays: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm; Wednesdays: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm; Thursdays: 9:00 am to 5:15 pm and Fridays: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. The practice is closed at the weekend. Access for urgent treatment outside of opening hours is by ringing the practice and following the instructions on the recorded message.

The practice has seven dentists, although not all work full time, one dental hygienist and six dental nurses who also work on reception. There is one trainee dental nurse at the practice.

We received very positive feedback from 37 patients about the services provided. Patients expressed satisfaction with the whole service from reception to the dentist’s chair. Three patients said they had been seen quickly in an emergency, and one had a quick referral to the hospital for suspected cancer. Nearly half of the patients who provided feedback referred to being put at ease and helped to overcome their fear and anxiety. We received specific feedback requesting grab rails at the front door to help with negotiating the step into the practice.

Our key findings were:

• The practice had systems and processes to record accidents, significant events and complaints.
• Learning from any complaints and significant incidents was recorded and learning was shared with staff.
• When necessary apologies were given to patients when things had gone wrong.
• All staff had received whistle blowing training and were aware of these procedures and how to use them.
• Patients spoke very positively about the dental service they received, and several recounted positive experiences they had had at the practice.
• Patients said they were treated with dignity and respect, from the reception desk through to seeing the dentist.
• Records showed there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of patients.
• Staff had been trained to deal with medical emergencies.
• Emergency medicines, an automated external defibrillator (AED), and oxygen were readily available. An AED is a portable electronic device that automatically diagnoses life threatening irregularities of the heart and delivers an electrical shock to attempt to restore a normal heart rhythm.
• The practice followed the relevant guidance from the Department of Health's: ‘Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05) for infection control.
• Patients’ care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.
• Patients said they were involved in making decisions about their treatment, and records in the practice supported this view.
• Options for treatment were identified and explored and discussed with patients.
• Patients’ confidentiality was maintained.

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

• Review and update the Legionella risk assessment at the practice.
• As part of the Legionella risk assessment, hot water taps should be run on a regular basis and water temperatures recorded.
• Change the waste bin in decontamination room to a hands free, foot pedal design to reduce the infection control risks.
• Re-organise the storage of mops in the cleaning cupboard, so they do not pose a risk of cross infection.

People we spoke to said that they received care which met their needs and felt staff communicated with them well. They also said that they felt the practice was clean and that staff used personal protective equipment to ensure hygienic practice.