You are here

Plymouth Orthodontics Limited

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13, 28 February 2014
Date of Publication: 20 March 2014
Inspection Report published 20 March 2014 PDF

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 13 February 2014 and 28 February 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We sent a questionnaire to people who use the service, talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

We found that the people who used this service and their representatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment and these were acted on. Everyone we spoke with was positive about the staff and the service they had received. A Patient Feedback Survey was undertaken by the dentist between November 2013 and January 2014. Survey comments included “All staff and dentist are very friendly and approachable”, “It’s very good!”, and “everything is great”. We noted suggestions included more opening days, text reminders for appointments and magazines in the waiting room. People were also invited via the practice website to share their ideas and suggestions for improvement of the service.

We asked the dentist about how suggestions were addressed. The dentist had extended opening hours for private patients to provide early and later appointments however there were no plans to open the practice five days a week due to other commitments outside the practice. We were told magazines were not provided in the waiting room to avoid cross infection. We were also told that information leaflets were kept in the surgery. These were given to each patient by the dentist to ensure the patient had the correct leaflet for the type of appliance they had fitted, and the dentist was able to record on the patient record when these were given. The dentist however agreed to consider putting up pictures or posters in the waiting room to provide some distraction and make it look less stark and clinical.

The people we spoke with said they did not know how to make a complaint but they had not needed to do this. They also said that in the event they were unhappy about anything they would find out or speak to the receptionist.

The dentist advised us that no complaints had been received about treatment although concerns had been raised about the treatment waiting list waiting times. If people raised concerns with the dental nurses, they would discuss this with the dentist. Any relevant details relating to conversations with patients were recorded in the patient's record. This meant any queries could be addressed by the dentist with the patient and/or family at the next appointment. The complaints procedure was not displayed but the dentist agreed this would be put up in the waiting room following our inspection visit.

The surgery had a checklist that was completed daily by the dental nurses. These checks were completed at the start and end of each clinical session to ensure the proper preparation and cleanliness of equipment and the surgery. Similar checks were completed for the reception area and the decontamination room. These checks were audited by the dentist.

We found protocols and procedures were in place for the management of emergency drugs and equipment, and for the management of medicines that may be required by patients in association with their dental care.

We found equipment was serviced and checked as required. Clinical waste was stored safely and was collected by a clinical waste contractor from the practice every three weeks. The provider had an arrangement with the contractor that the frequency could be changed if necessary. Staff knew the procedures and guidance they had to follow to ensure people were protected from cross infection.

We saw fire alarm, emergency lighting and fire extinguishers were checked annually by an external contractor and the last check was 01/10/2013. Regular fire drills were carried out. We saw that the last one was on 28/10/2013 and the names of all the staff present were logged. We found that the dentist had confirmed with the local fire and safety support service that a log of oxygen was kept on the premises. There was also signage indicating oxygen was kept on the premises. This was essential for people's safety and protection in the event of a fire.

The CPR equipment was tagged in order to monitor if anyone tampered with it. This was checked weekly by the dental nurses on a rota basis. The fi