Synergy Dental Clinic Leyland

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 that the practice was delivering effective care in line with relevant regulations and appropriate guidance. However, while care itself was effective, our concerns relate to the governance and oversight of the systems that support this care.

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, that 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.

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.

Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

Staff were aware of and actively involved in local initiatives that support patients to live healthier lives, such as providing oral health education in schools. They also shared “goody” packs, including toothbrushes, as part of these visits.

The practice offered dental implants. Staff obtained consent and had access to the appropriate equipment for the placement of implants.

We reviewed a selection of patient care records and found the information generally aligned with recognised guidance. Staff obtained patient consent in line with legislation and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They involved relatives or carers when appropriate and ensured treatment options were clearly explained. Improvements were needed to ensure clinical records were consistently complete, accurately tailored to each appointment type, and fully justified treatment decisions, particularly regarding antibiotic use and implant care.

The practice offered conscious sedation for patients; however, improvements were needed to ensure the process was in line with current guidance. In particular, accurate and complete documentation was not consistently maintained, pre-treatment assessments were not always carried out in advance by appropriately trained staff, and there were shortfalls in the use of recommended monitoring equipment and availability of emergency airway devices. The leadership team confirmed they would review the protocols.

We do not assess compliance with the Ionising Radiation regulations 2017 and the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) regulations 2017 but we do request services to provide evidence that demonstrates their compliance to inform our findings. Improvements were needed to ensure consistent and compliant practices in dental radiography. We found inconsistencies in the justification, reporting, and review of radiographic images, including CBCT scans. Oversight of X-rays taken by non-dentists required strengthening, and local protocols and risk assessments did not accurately reflect current practice or equipment use.

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.