You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 3 October 2017

We carried out this announced inspection on 22 September 2017 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

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

CBC Dental Studio is in Canada Water, in the London borough of Southwark. It provides private treatment to patients of all ages.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and pushchairs. Restricted car parking spaces are available near the practice.

The dental team includes seven dentists, a dental nurse, two trainee dental nurses, a dental hygienist, two dental administrators who also work as receptionists, and a domestic staff member. The practice has two treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by a company, and as a condition of registration must have a person registered with the CQC as the registered manager. Registered managers 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 registered manager at CBC Dental Studio was the practice manager.

On the day of inspection we received feedback from 10 patients This information gave us a positive view of the practice.

During the inspection we spoke with the principal dentist, the dental nurses, a dental administrator/ receptionist and the practice manager. We checked practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open at the following times:

Monday, Tuesday: 9am – 8pm

Wednesday, Thursday: 9am – 6pm

Friday: 8am – 4pm

Saturday: 9am – 4pm

Our key findings were:

  • The practice was clean and well maintained. They had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • The practice had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • The appointment system met patients’ needs.
  • The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The practice dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Emergency medicines and equipment were available in line with national recommendations.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk. The practice carried out an outstanding health and safety risk assessment shortly after the inspection.
  • The practice had effective leadership. Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The team kept clearly written patient dental care records which stored securely. Improvements could be made to ensure all dentists recorded the necessary information in patients’ dental care records with regard to radiographs taken.
  • Staff knew their roles and responsibilities, though improvements could be made to ensure all clinical staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Gillick competence.
  • Staff told us they received regular appraisals; improvements could be made to ensure these appraisals were documented.
  • Improvements could also be made to the practice’s recruitment procedures with regard to ensuring specific background checks were carried out prior to staff commencing work at the practice.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

  • Review staff awareness of their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Gillick competence.
  • Review staff supervision protocols to ensure an effective process is established for the on-going appraisal of all staff.
  • Review the practice’s protocols for recording in the patients’ dental care records or elsewhere the reason for taking the radiograph and quality of the radiograph, ensuring compliance with the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IRMER) 2000.
  • Review the practice’s recruitment procedures to ensure that appropriate background checks are completed prior to new staff commencing employment at the practice.

Shortly after the inspection the practice proactively began to address issues we had identified and sent us evidence of actions they had taken within two days of the inspection.

Inspection areas

Safe

No action required

Updated 3 October 2017

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The practice had systems and processes to provide safe care and treatment. They used learning from incidents and complaints to help them improve.

Staff received training in safeguarding and knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and how to report concerns.

Staff were qualified for their roles and the practice completed essential recruitment checks. Improvements could be made to ensure Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were completed prior to staff commencing employment at the practice.

Premises and equipment were clean and properly maintained. The practice followed national guidance for cleaning, sterilising and storing dental instruments.

The practice had suitable arrangements for dealing with medical and other emergencies.

Shortly after the inspection the practice proactively began to address issues we had identified.

Effective

No action required

Updated 3 October 2017

We found that this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The dentists assessed patients’ needs and provided care and treatment in line with recognised guidance. Patients described the treatment they received as caring and professional. The dentists discussed treatment with patients so they could give informed consent and recorded this in their records.

The practice had clear arrangements when patients needed to be referred to other dental or health care professionals.

The practice supported staff to complete training relevant to their roles and had systems to help them monitor this.

Staff told us they received regular appraisals; improvements could be made to ensure these appraisals were documented.

Caring

No action required

Updated 3 October 2017

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We received feedback about the practice from 10 people. Patients were positive about all aspects of the service the practice provided. They told us staff were caring, helpful and professional. They said that they were given clear explanations about dental treatment, and said their dentist listened to them. Patients commented that they made them feel at ease, especially when they were anxious about visiting the dentist.

We saw that staff protected patients’ privacy and were aware of the importance of confidentiality. Patients said staff treated them with dignity and respect.

Responsive

No action required

Updated 3 October 2017

We found that this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The practice’s appointment system was efficient and met patients’ needs. Patients could get an appointment quickly if in pain.

Staff considered patients’ different needs. This included providing facilities for disabled patients and families with children. The practice had access to interpreter services which included British Sign Language (BSL).

Staff spoke Russian, Spanish, Italian, French, Hindi and English. The practice’s website was available in Russian.

The practice took patients views seriously. They valued compliments from patients and responded to concerns and complaints quickly and constructively.

Well-led

No action required

Updated 3 October 2017

We found that this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The practice had arrangements to ensure the smooth running of the service. These included systems for the practice team to discuss the quality and safety of the care and treatment provided. There was a clearly defined management structure and staff felt supported and appreciated.

The practice team kept patient dental care records which were clearly typed and stored securely. Improvements could be made to ensure all dentists recorded the necessary information about radiographs taken in patients’ dental care records.

The practice monitored clinical and non-clinical areas of their work to help them improve and learn. This included asking for and listening to the views of patients and staff.

Staff knew their roles and responsibilities, though improvements could be made to ensure all clinical staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Gillick competence.

Shortly after the inspection the practice proactively began to address issues we had identified.