You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 6 August 2019

We carried out this announced inspection on 9 July 2019 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

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.

Background

Ball Street Dental Practice is in Shaftsbury and provides NHS and private treatment to adults and children.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. Car parking spaces, including those for blue badge holders, are available near the practice.

The dental team includes two dentists, three dental nurses and two receptionists. The practice has two treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal dentist there. They have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

On the day of inspection, we collected 44 CQC comment cards filled in by patients, spoke with four other patients; and received five emails from patients directly.

During the inspection we spoke with two dentists, two dental nurses and one receptionist. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday to Thursday 9am to 5pm

Friday 9am to 1pm

Our key findings were:

  • The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
  • The provider had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The provider had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff.
  • The provider had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The provider had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • Staff provided preventive care and supporting patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
  • Improvements could be made to Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002 file to ensure the safe storage and use of materials used.
  • Improvements could be made to fridge temperature monitoring.
  • Improvements could be made to dental care records taking into account guidance
  • Improvements could be made to protocols and the use of rubber dams in line with guidance.
  • The provider had effective leadership and culture of continuous improvement.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The provider asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The provider dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
  • The provider had suitable information governance arrangements.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

  • Review the practice's policy for the control and storage of substances hazardous to health identified by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, to ensure risk assessments are undertaken and the products are stored securely.

  • Review the practice's protocols for completion of dental care records taking into account the guidance provided by the Faculty of General Dental Practice.

  • Review the practice's protocols for monitoring and recording the fridge temperature to ensure that medicines and dental care products are being stored in line with the manufacturer’s guidance.

  • Review the practice’s protocols for the use of rubber dam for root canal treatment taking into account guidelines issued by the British Endodontic Society.

Inspection areas

Safe

No action required

Updated 6 August 2019

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with

the relevant regulations.

Effective

No action required

Updated 6 August 2019

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

Caring

No action required

Updated 6 August 2019

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

Responsive

No action required

Updated 6 August 2019

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

Well-led

No action required

Updated 6 August 2019

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