You are here

Archived: D Robertson & Associates - Whitehouse Dental Practice

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 26 April 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on 26 April 2017 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.


Whitehouse Dental Practice is in Sutton Coldfield and provides private treatment to patients of all ages.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and pushchairs, a ground floor treatment room, and adapted toilet to meet the needs of patients with a disability. Car parking spaces, including one for patients with disabled badges, are available at the front of the practice.

The dental team includes four dentists, four dental nurses, two dental hygienists, one dental hygienist therapist, two receptionists and a practice manager. The practice has three 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 48 CQC comment cards filled in by patients and spoke with one other patient. This information gave us a positive view of the practice.

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

The practice is open: Monday 8.30 to 5.30pm, Tuesday 9am to 5pm, Wednesday 9am to 5.30pm, Thursday 8.15am to 5.30pm and Friday 8.30am to 5pm.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice was clean and well maintained.
  • The practice made changes to their infection control procedures during the inspection and held meetings and training with staff to ensure that they met published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk.
  • The practice had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The practice 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.
  • The appointment system met patients’ needs.
  • The practice had effective leadership. Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The practice dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.

Inspection carried out on 12 August 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We previously inspected Whitehouse Dental Practice on 19 February 2014. At the time we found one area of non-compliance which we judged had a moderate impact on patients who used the service. We found that patients who used the service could not be assured that the staff who worked at the practice were suitable to provide care and treatment to vulnerable adults and children. We set compliance actions and told the provider to improve.

We gave short notice of this inspection so that any disruption to people's care and treatment were minimised. We spoke with the practice manager. We found that the provider had made the necessary improvements.

We saw that additional systems had been put in place to ensure that recruitment practices were robust.

Inspection carried out on 19 February 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service, three members of staff and the practice manager.

People told us they were happy with the care and treatment they received. One person said, “I have every confidence in the dentists here, I wouldn’t dream of going anywhere else”. Another person said, “The treatment I have received has been exceptional”.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in the planning of their treatment. We saw that there were effective systems in place to enable staff to be responsive to the needs of people with disabilities.

Care and treatment was based upon clinical guidelines and individual need, and people told us they were treated with care and compassion.

During our inspection we saw that the practice was clean and tidy. We observed staff following policies and procedures to protect people from the risks associated with infections.

Staff told us the provider was supportive and they were encouraged to access the training they required to provide safe and effective care and treatment. The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

We found that the provider did not have an effective system in place to assure people that the staff who provided their care and treatment were suitable to work with vulnerable adults and children.