You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 December 2013
Date of Publication: 11 January 2014
Inspection Report published 11 January 2014 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

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 10 December 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People that we spoke with told us that staff were friendly and welcoming to the practice. We noted that arrangements had been made to ensure that the practice was as accessible as possible. For example, there was a hearing loop available for people in the practice and there was a ramp available for use should it be required by a person using a wheel chair. When necessary, arrangements could be made to ensure that people with mobility needs could be seen in a downstairs surgery.

We spoke with six patients as part of our inspection and received a number of positive comments about the service that they received at the practice. One person told us that they were very pleased to have found their current dentist, having been unhappy with the care they'd received at a number of other practices. We were told that treatment was well explained and that all the various options for treatment were given as well the costs that would be incurred. This meant that people were able to make fully informed decisions about the treatment they received.

Thought had been given to protecting people's right to confidentiality and privacy. There was a policy in place for confidentiality which included clear information about personal information and the circumstances in which it might be disclosed. Patient records were computerised which reduced the risk of an unauthorised person gaining access to them.

We spoke with staff about how they would involve a person who was unable to make decisions about their own care or treatment. Staff told us that they would involve a family member or care staff to make sure that the individual concerned had understood. This would help ensure that decisions were made in the person's best interest and in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This is legislation that protects the rights of people who aren't able to make decisions independently. The provider might find it useful to note that knowledge of the Act was variable amongst staff.