We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 5 September 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

The practice is located within a purpose adapted property in Hullbridge, Essex and offers a range of private preventative, restorative and cosmetic dental treatments to adult patients and children.

The practice is open and offers appointments for patients between 10am and 4pm on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and between 10am and 2pm on Saturdays.

The principal dentist is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual. 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 practice has one treatment room, a combined waiting room and a reception area. Decontamination takes place in a dedicated decontamination room (Decontamination is the process by which dirty and contaminated instruments are bought from the treatment room, washed, inspected, sterilised and sealed in pouches ready for use again).

We left comment cards at the practice for the two weeks preceding the inspection. Eight people provided feedback about the service in this way. All of the comments made reflected very high levels of patient satisfaction with the dental care and treatment provided and the professional attitude and understanding of the dental team.

Our key findings were:

• The practice had systems in place for investigating and learning from safety incidents or accidents. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report incidents.
• The practice was visibly clean and clutter free. Infection control practices were reviewed and audited to test their effectiveness.
• There were systems in place to help keep people safe, including safeguarding vulnerable children and adults.
• The practice medicines and equipment for use in the event of a medical emergency were in line with current guidelines. Records were maintained in respect of the checks carried out for these medicines and equipment.
• Some staff files did not include evidence of all the relevant training in respect of their roles and responsibilities within the practice.
• Patients reported that they were treated with respect and that staff were polite and helpful.
• Patients were involved in making decisions about their care and treatments.
• The practice could normally arrange a routine appointment within a few days or emergency appointments mostly on the same day.
• Effective governance arrangements were in place for the smooth running of the service.
• Patient’s views were sought and these were used to make improvements to the service where these were identified.

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

• Review the systems for monitoring staff training so that up to date records are maintained.
• 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