We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 26 August 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

Lund Osler is located in the London Borough of Westminster and provides private dental services. The opening hours for the practice were Monday to Friday 9.00 to 6.00pm, with Thursdays late opening till 8.00pm and Saturdays 9.00 -4.00pm.

The premises consists of four treatment rooms a decontamination room and waiting area.

The practice comprises of a principal dentist, two dentist, three dental nurses, one receptionist and a practice manager.

The principal dentist is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual registered person. 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 the inspection we asked patients to complete CQC comment cards. We received 14 comment cards back from patients and spoke with three patients on the day of the inspection. The patients who provided feedback were positive about the care and treatment they received at the practice. They told us they were involved in all aspects of their care and found the staff to be caring, friendly and helpful and they were treated with care, dignity and respect.

Our key findings were:

• There were effective processes in place to reduce and minimise the risk and spread of infection.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned in line with best practice guidance such as from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) .Patients were involved in their care and treatment planning.
• There was appropriate equipment for staff to undertake their duties and equipment was well maintained.
• Staff were trained in and there was appropriate equipment for them to respond to medical emergencies.
• Patients told us that staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect.
• Patients indicated that they felt they were listened to and that they received good care from a helpful and caring practice team.
• There were processes in place for patients to give their comments and feedback about the service including making complaints and compliments.
• There were good governance arrangements and an effective management structure.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should

• Review staff awareness of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and ensure all staff are aware of their responsibilities under the Act as it relates to their role.

We were not able to speak with people using the service because on the day of the inspection there were no patients available. We gathered evidence on people’s experiences by reviewing the surveys sent out to people and the comments book held in reception.