When we previously inspected Hudson's Dental Practice on 10 October 2013 we found that the provider was not compliant with the essential standard relating to the prevention and control of infection. There were also no effective systems in place to act on people's feedback or to monitor the quality of service. We required the provider to take action. When we inspected the service again on 07 April 2014 we saw that improvements had been made.

The decontamination room was newly refurbished and had brand new, safe and hygienic equipment. The dental team worked to revised practice guidelines on infection control and decontamination that were based on the Department of Health guidance.

We saw that a patient survey had been carried out in February 2014 and that the provider was taking steps to act on the findings of the survey. We also saw that the provider had introduced a regime of routine audits, including an infection control audit, designed to assess the quality of a range of key aspects of the practice.

When we inspected Hudson’s Dental Practice on 10 October 2013 we reviewed four people's care plans. These showed us that every time people visited the practice their dental health and general well-being was checked to make sure that before any treatment commenced the person was well enough for it to be carried out. We saw from the dental records that treatment options and explanations were given before treatment commenced.

One person said, "I have been coming here for more than thirty years and have always had good service. The dentists are gentle and kind. Everything is explained.” Another told us, “I haven’t been coming here for long, but everyone is nice and the surroundings are very relaxing.”

On the day of our inspection the surgeries and waiting areas were all clean. However, the area where decontamination and sterilisation of instruments took place was visibly dirty. There was no process to ensure the premises were cleaned systematically, or for checking that cleaning had been carried out.

We saw evidence that staff received appropriate professional development and were supported by regular training, updates and annual appraisal. However, the appraisal system was in its early stages and all appraisals were incomplete.

There was no system in place to gain feedback from customers to gauge people's satisfaction. Furthermore, there was no robust system in place to identify risks to people who use the service and measure the quality of service provided.