You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 February 2013
Date of Publication: 14 May 2013
Inspection Report published 14 May 2013 PDF | 89.54 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 25 February 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People's privacy and independence were respected and people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was delivered.

Reasons for our judgement

The practice was accessible for people living with a disability. The environment provided suitable facilities and enabled people to speak in private if they needed to. We spoke with four people who all told us they were treated well by the staff and trusted them. We observed the interactions between staff and people using the service and it was friendly and appropriate. This meant that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

People who used the service were given sufficient information and support regarding their care and treatment. All the people we spoke with said that the treatment options were clearly explained to them and they felt that they had all the information they required to make decisions on what treatment to have. Treatment plans were provided following people’s initial consultation. Treatment options were explained by the dentist and then again by the receptionist, who was also a dental nurse so understood the different treatment options. This meant that people were clear about their options and had time to consider which treatment was best for them. We examined three people’s dental records and saw that people had signed their consent for an examination and treatment. Their records contained a treatment plan, costs of various treatments and updated medical histories. People’s records showed what people wanted to achieve from their visit whether it be improvements to their dental health or for cosmetic reasons. We saw that prepayment schemes were operated by the service to help people spread the costs of treatment. This meant that people received person centred care, consented to their treatment and knew the price of treatments.

The receptionist was an experienced dental nurse and gave clear information to people about their proposed treatments and costs. This was supported by information in the waiting area promoting good oral health and advertising treatments available. People were reminded the day before about their forthcoming appointments and people were offered appointments to suit their needs. The practice had allocated spaces every day to deal with emergencies and had out of hour arrangements in the evenings and at weekends. This meant the service met people’s needs in an appropriate and flexible way according to their needs.

The dentist told us that they treated people from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Practice staff spoke several different languages and felt they could accommodate most people. They had formal arrangements in place to provide emergency treatment to staff working in the horse racing industry. Part of this arrangement was that people were accompanied by interpreters so they could access the service when required. The service had access to a language interpretation service, which meant that literature could be translated into the correct language for the person. This meant that people were enabled to fully participate in their treatment and understand the different options.

The principle dentist provided evidence of how they asked people for their views and experiences about the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. The last survey involving over 100 people was in June 2011. The provider may wish to note that the survey produced some positive comments but there was no evidence that the results had been analysed to see if any improvements were required or that people taking part had been made aware of the results. The provider told us that they had staffing difficulties last year but intended to repeat the survey in 2013.