Archived: Pure Periodontics

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 7 June 2016 to ask the practice the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Pure Periodontics is located in the London Borough of City of London. The practice is on the ground floor and basement and comprises of three surgeries and a decontamination room. There was also a reception and waiting area. Toilet facilities for patients were also available in the basement.

The practice provides private dental services and treats adults. The practice offers specialist periodontal (gum) dental services.

The staff structure of the practice comprises of a practice manager, periodontist, two hygienist/dental therapists and a dental nurse. The practice was open Monday to Friday from 9am-5pm.

The practice manager is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the practice is run.

The inspection took place over one day and was carried out by a CQC inspector and a dental specialist advisor.

We received feedback from 20 patients. The feedback from the patients was positive in relation to the care they received from the practice. They were complimentary about the friendly and caring attitude of the staff.

Our key findings were:

• The practice had systems in place to receive alerts from relevant external organisations such as Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
• The practice had policies and procedures in place for child protection and safeguarding adults.
• There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies
• There was a complaints procedure available for patients.
• There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned.
• Patients indicated that they felt they were listened to and that they received good care from the practice staff.
• The system for testing and servicing equipment needed improving. There was no evidence at the time of the inspection that portable appliance testing (PAT) and equipment, such as the air compressor and ultra-sonic bath, had been serviced to check their effectiveness.

There were areas where the practice could make improvements and should:

• Review availability of equipment to manage medical emergencies giving due regard to guidelines issued by the British National Formulary, the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the General Dental Council (GDC) standards for the dental team.
• Review the training, learning and development needs of individual staff members at appropriate intervals and ensure an effective process is established for the on-going assessment, supervision and appraisal of all staff.