You are here

Archived: Andover Dental Practice

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 October 2012
Date of Publication: 9 November 2012
Inspection Report published 9 November 2012 PDF | 79.38 KB

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 12 October 2012, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with three people attending the practice for dental appointments on the day we visited. People told us they were very satisfied with the care they received. Two people said they had chosen to follow the dentist when he moved practices, as they had a high level of confidence in the care and treatment he provided. People told us that they were always treated with courtesy and respect at this practice. They said they were always involved in decisions about their care and received sufficient information to understand their treatments. One person said about the dentist, “He always explains things and outlines the pros and cons of any treatments” and another said “The staff put people at ease; it's very friendly here.”

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. From our observations of a routine examination, we noted that people were encouraged to ask questions and they were fully involving in discussing treatment options. The dentist outlined the costs and likely outcomes of any treatments. They said they were satisfied with the appointment system and appreciated being sent reminders in advance.

When we looked at three sets of patient records we saw some risks associated with treatments were discussed with people. The dentist had already identified, by audit, that although risks and options were always discussed with people, these were not consistently recorded in the notes, and this was being rectified.

People were given information about the services provided and the practice team. There was a selection of leaflets for people on different dental treatments and the practice’s website outlined the services offered. The practice information leaflet included information about opening hours, costs and insurance plans, as well as how to make complaints or comments. It also gave advice on translation services available at the practice. The practice is on the first floor making access for some people difficult or impossible. People were made aware of this and were offered alternative solutions appropriate to their needs. This was clearly outlined on the practice’s documentation.

People were also involved in making improvements to the practice. As well as undertaking regular surveys of people’s views and satisfaction, the practice had also recently established an advisory group to support decision making about practice plans and developments. We saw that the group was used to inform plans to relocate the service to new, ground floor premises.