We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 12 January 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

Kent House Dental Clinic is located in Beckenham in south-east London. The practice consists of two treatment rooms, a waiting room, decontamination area, reception area and patient toilet with all the facilities situated on the ground.

The practice provides NHS and private dental treatment to children and adults. The practice offers a range of dental treatments such as routine examinations, general dental treatments, orthodontics, oral hygiene care, and restorative treatments such as veneers, crowns, bridges and implants.

The practice is open Monday –Friday 9.30am - 5.30pm and offers evening and Saturday morning appointments on request. The staff structure consists of a principal dentist, a dental nurse, two receptionists and hygienists.

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 inspection took place over one day and was carried out by a CQC inspector and a dental specialist advisor.

We received 20 CQC comment cards completed by patients and spoke with eight patients during our inspection visit. Patients we spoke with, and those who completed comment cards, were positive about the care they received from the practice. They were complimentary about the professionalism and friendly attitude of the staff and that they were able to access appointments easily.

Our key findings were:

• 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).

• There were effective systems in place to reduce and minimise the risk and spread of infection.

• The practice had effective safeguarding processes in place and staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children living in vulnerable circumstances.

• Equipment, such as the air compressor, autoclave (steriliser), fire extinguishers, and X-ray equipment had all been checked for effectiveness and had been regularly serviced.

• Patients indicated that they felt they were listened to and that they received good care from a helpful and caring practice team.

• The practice had implemented clear procedures for managing comments, concerns or complaints.

• The practice manager had a clear vision for the practice and staff told us they were well supported by the management team.

• Governance arrangements and audits were effective in improving the quality and safety of the services.

We spoke to five people who used the service who told us they were happy with the dental service they received. One person told us they and their extended family visited the clinic even though they no longer lived in the area because they were so happy with the care they were provided with. They told us it was a "fantastic dentist" and "nothing was too much trouble". Another person told us staff had made them feel comfortable, and other people said staff were polite and helpful. People were happy with the information they received and the advice they were given. We heard treatments took place in a way that respected people's privacy and dignity, and people told us they were clear about any costs involved. People were also happy with the appearance and cleanliness of the surgery.

We found that people were involved in planning their care, and they were provided with treatment options. People's care was provided in accordance with their treatment plan, and the provider sought to obtain people's medical history information in advance of appointments in most cases. We checked infection control policies and practice, and found that although most practice protected people from the risk of infection, some shortfalls were identified. We found staff were adequately supported through induction, training, team meetings and appraisals and they were encouraged to work towards their professional development. The provider kept appropriate records which were stored securely.