Burscough Dental Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred, care and treatment, which was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged.

Staff kept up to date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

We looked at a selection of patient care records. On the whole, the information recorded in these patient care records was in line with recognised guidance. Improvements should be made to ensure all clinicians were consistently adhering to the current British Society of Periodontology (BSP) guidelines. In addition, they should ensure the recording of prescriptions issued, justification for antibiotic prescribing and the quality of X-rays taken is consistently recorded.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

We saw evidence the dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took. The practice carried out radiography audits following current guidance. However, we identified from the quality of the X-ray records we were shown, there were possible issues with the sensor used to expose the image and the audit had not enabled the practice to identify this.

The practice had systems for the safe handling and prescribing of medicines. NHS prescription pads were kept securely, and a log was in place to monitor and track their use.

Where applicable, patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national Faster Diagnosis Standard.

Systems were in place to develop staff with additional responsibilities; however, some staff who shared feedback, told us they did not feel supported to do so.

The practice offered conscious sedation for patients. The practice’s systems included checks before and after treatment, emergency equipment requirements, medicines management, sedation equipment checks, and staff availability and training. The practice should take action to ensure that protocols reflect the guidelines published by The Intercollegiate Advisory Committee for Sedation in Dentistry in the document 'Standards for Conscious Sedation in the Provision of Dental Care 2020’. In particular, we noted the pre-assessment checks and consent protocols in place were not in accordance with current guidelines. We raised this with the senior leadership team who confirmed this would be reviewed and rectified.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.