We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 10 February 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 Anchor Dental Centre provides primary dental care and treatment to patients whose care is funded through the NHS and to a small number of patients who pay privately. The service is part of Petrie Tucker and Partners Limited, owned by a large provider of dental care, Mydentist. At the time of the inspection, the practice employed two dentists, four dental nurses, two trainee dental nurses (one yet to commence training who also worked as a receptionist), a practice manager and a receptionist. The practice opens 9 am to 5pm Monday to Friday and alternate Saturdays by appointment with a dental hygienist.

The practice manager 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.

We received feedback from nine patients either in person or on CQC comments cards from patients who had visited the practice in the two weeks before our inspection. The cards were all positive and commented about the caring and helpful attitude of the staff. Patients told us they were happy with the care and treatment they had received. Two patients raised concern about a lack of continuity of their treatment due to staff changes.

Our key findings were:

• There was appropriate equipment for staff to undertake their duties, and equipment was well maintained.
• Staff had been trained to handle emergencies and appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment was readily available in accordance with current guidelines.
• The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
• Staff received training and development and were appropriately supervised.
• Patients told us they were able to get an appointment when they needed one and the staff were kind and helpful.
• Governance arrangements were in place for the smooth running of the practice. This included the completion of regular audits to help monitor the quality and safety of the service.

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

• Review the practice’s policy for the identification of incidents and significant events so that related issues can be reviewed or improved.
• Review the practice’s decontamination procedures in relation to manual cleaning of dental instruments and testing of the ultrasonic cleaning bath giving due regard to guidelines issued by the Department of Health - Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices and The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice’ on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.
• Review the relevant guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and support staff to remain familiar with them. Update to the current Department of Health publication ‘Delivering better oral health: an evidence-based toolkit for prevention.
• Review the records kept of the complaint handling process, the response provided to the patient, the learning identified and actions taken by staff.
• Review the availability of an interpreter service for patients who do not speak English as their first language and the availability of practice information in key alternative languages.
• Review the system used to share audit outcomes with staff

Four people we spoke with during the inspection on 08 August 2012, told us they and their families attended the surgery and were very happy with the care received. Two people said that although they had not had the same dentist each visit they felt this had not been an issue. One person said, "I don't get the same dentist, there are changes and they're understandable".

People said they were able to get an appointment within a reasonable time and could be on the list for any cancellation appointment becoming available.

All of those we spoke with said they had been given the necessary information about their treatment and they (and their relatives) had been supported by staff if there had been any issues regarding anxiety.