You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 September 2013
Date of Publication: 15 October 2013
Inspection Report published 15 October 2013 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 17 September 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People told us that all the staff were courteous and always friendly. One person said, “we get a great deal of guidance”. Another said that the dentist “really is excellent, incredibly thorough. She gives you all the alternatives and costs.” One person told us how well they were informed; “I get shown what is happening” by the dentist using photos on a screen. We saw that people were given a treatment plan with the estimated cost which they signed to show that they understood and gave their consent.

We saw that the practice had a policy on maintaining confidentiality. A newly recruited member of staff had read and signed it during their first week, demonstrating that the practice gave it priority. We saw that the reception desk was separate from the waiting room so that people would not be overheard while giving details to staff. One person who used the service said, “they respect confidentiality. Other members of my family come here but staff don’t discuss their business with me.”

We saw that an assessment of the premises had been carried out with respect to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 showing that the practice understood its legal responsibilities. There was a flight of stairs from the front door down to the practice. The receptionist told us that she checked with new patients whether this would pose a problem, told them of the bannister on each side and offered to meet them at the top if that would help.

We asked how they would help people when language was a barrier to communication. Staff told us they had access to an interpreter service but had not yet needed to use it.