Moonz London

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

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

At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in post as required as a condition of registration. A registered manager is legally responsible for the management of services for which the practice is registered. An application had been submitted several weeks before our inspection and the registration process was pending.

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

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The practice had a governance system that included policies and procedures, which were accessible to staff and were reviewed on a regular basis.

Systems and processes were embedded, and the inspection did not highlight significant issues or omissions. Areas requiring improvement were acted on immediately.

Staff were aware of the importance of protecting patients’ personal information. Staff password protected patients’ electronic care records, and paper records were stored securely and complied with General Data Protection Regulations.

On the day of the on-site inspection the practice did not have effective systems in place to inform patients that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras were in use in the treatment rooms (private areas). A Data Protection Impact Assessment had not been carried out and patient consent was not obtained. Following our inspection feedback these concerns were addressed immediately.

There were effective processes for identifying and managing risks, investigating incidents and accidents, and for receiving and acting on safety alerts.

The practice had systems and processes for learning, quality assurance and continuous improvement. This included undertaking audits according to recognised guidance.

Concerns and complaints were responded to appropriately, and outcomes were discussed to share learning and for improvement.

We noted innovative approaches to providing person centred care. Early orthodontic assessment was promoted, and the practice was aimed towards children of 6 years and above. There were 3 wash basins at different heights for children to practice their brushing techniques. The waiting area had TV consoles where children could enjoy age-appropriate games. Each child was given their own account with membership card where they could earn points for good oral hygiene and cooperation with their treatment. The points could be collected and converted into prizes. For example, smart speakers, oral hygiene products and practice branded toys, pens, socks and bags. The practice ran colouring competitions on a regular basis. The winner’s picture was printed onto T-shirts that were given as a prize and worn by staff. The practice was decorated with colourful murals throughout, and the X-ray room was designed to give an impression of being in outer space.

Staff had clear responsibilities, and systems of accountability to support good governance.

Staff feedback was obtained through meetings, and informal discussions. They were encouraged to offer suggestions for improvements to the service, and they said these were listened to and acted upon, where appropriate.

Feedback from patients, the public and external partners was collected to which the practice responded.

The practice had taken steps to improve environmental sustainability. For example, the digital workflow reduced waste, and recycling was implemented where possible.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.