Nunneleyhouse Dental Practice

We saw recruitment records demonstrated there were now effective systems in place to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people using the service who maybe considered vulnerable.

The safe storage of records had been reviewed to ensure that information about people was kept securely to maintain their confidentiality.

Infection control procedures were in place to ensure equipment was sterilised to a suitable standard and was safe to use.

There was one dentist, and two staff working in the dental practice. We talked with the dentist and one member of staff during our inspection, and we also spoke with two people using the service.

People using the service told us that the dental practice was relaxed, treatments were explained and the staff were friendly and helpful. One person told us, 'I've been happy with all the treatment I've received, and everything gets explained to me.'

The arrangements for cleaning and sterilising dental instruments had been improved. This meant the service could now demonstrate that equipment was being cleaned to an appropriate standard.

We found that the provider did not operate an effective recruitment procedure. Staff had not had the required checks to ensure they were suitable to work within the service. This meant people could not be confident that the staff were suitable and safe to work in the service.

Systems were not always in place to ensure records were kept securely. This meant that people could not be confident that their information was kept confidentially.

The registered person was changing the decontamination facilities in the service. The work had not yet been completed to ensure decontamination process and procedures were of a good standard.

Quality audits had been carried out to demonstrate how the service was managed. People using the service were able to comment on how the service was delivered.

Staff had been recruited without the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work at the service. This meant people using the service received support from staff who had not been confirmed as suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Records were available to demonstrate equipment had been tested and suitably maintained. This meant the registered person could demonstrate they were safe to use.

People we spoke with told us their treatment could be arranged at a convenient time and they did not experience any lengthy delays. People could consider their treatment options and any costs involved and did not have to make a decision immediately.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the service and one person told us, 'He always tells me everything that he's doing and I've always been happy with my treatment.'

Quality audits had not been carried out to demonstrate the service was managed effectively and quality was maintained. We identified concerns with how dental equipment was cleaned to ensure it was safe to use. Systems needed improvement regarding how the equipment and decontamination room were maintained.

Staff had been recruited without robust checks to ensure they were suitable to work at the service.