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

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service were protected against the risks of inappropriate care and treatment because the quality of the service was monitored.

People were asked for their views about their care and treatment and their comments were acted upon. Patients were given opportunities to provide feedback about their care. There was a poster in the waiting room inviting people to complete questionnaires, and there was also a large suggestions box. We were shown surveys completed in the past year, which were positive about care and treatment. The receptionist explained how the patient advisory group had been set up to provide more specific feedback and suggestions to inform the development and planning of the new practice. It was explained how feedback had helped to establish priorities for the clinic’s relocation, which had been to select a ground floor site.

The principal dentist had audited the practice in April 2012. This had identified some areas for improvement, and we saw that these had been followed up. For example, the practice’s prevention of legionella plan had been reviewed and discussed at a team meeting, and understanding of the water testing regime had improved.

Other audits had been carried out to identify areas of improvement. For instance, an audit of new patient records in 2012 had identified that notes had not been taken of the treatment options discussed. As a result, the dentist was noting the options and advice given in more detail. In addition, the practice had audited records for completed medical history and patient waiting time. We saw that audits were used to improve the quality of care and treatment given to people.

We saw that the clinic maintained an incident book, and the dentist described examples of where changes to procedures had been implemented as a result. Similarly, the complaints log recorded any verbal complaints made about the service, and we were told what action had been taken. These related, for example, to the stairs and the way people were reminded of appointment times. There had been no written complaints.