We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 24 November 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

Kings Dental is a general dental practice situated in the Bedfordshire town of Flitwick. The practice provides NHS and private treatment to adults and children. In addition the practice offers the placement of dental implants. These are metal posts that are placed into the jaw bone, and are used to support a single tooth, bridge or denture.

The practice is housed in a converted building on both the ground and first floors. There are three treatment rooms, a waiting area, office, staff room and dedicated decontamination room where cleaning and sterilisation of dental instruments is carried out.

The principal dentist is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

During our visit we spoke with patients who attended the practice and collected comment cards that had been completed by patients in the preceding two weeks to the inspection. In total 50 patients provided feedback about the service. The feedback received was entirely positive, with patients commenting on the friendliness of the staff and how well they were able to put nervous patients at ease.

Our key findings were:

• The practice had robust procedures in place for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and child protection. Staff had received training appropriate to their role, and could describe in detail situations in which they would raise a safeguarding concern.

• The practice kept appropriate medicines and equipment to manage medical emergencies in accordance with the guidance issued by the Resuscitation Council UK and the British National Formulary.

• The practice exceeded the essential requirements of the ‘Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05): Decontamination in primary care dental practices.’ Published by the Department of Health.

• Data received from NHS England stated that the practice had a lower than average re-attendance rate within three months of treatment finishing. Indicating effective diagnosis and treatment.

• Dental care records were found to be comprehensive and accurate.

• Clinical audit was used effectively to monitor and improve the service.

• The practice sought feedback from patients, and acted on that feedback where possible.

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

• Review storage arrangements for emergencies medicines to ensure their effectiveness.