• Dentist
  • Dentist

Archived: Armitage Dental Practice

34 Rugeley Road, Armitage, Rugeley, Staffordshire, WS15 4BD (01543) 491800

Provided and run by:
Mr. James Healy

All Inspections

28 October 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook a follow up desk-based review of Armitage dental practice on 28 October 2020. This inspection was carried out to review in detail the actions taken by the registered provider to improve the quality of care and to confirm that the practice was now meeting legal requirements.

The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who had access to remote advice from a specialist dental adviser.

We undertook a comprehensive inspection of Armitage dental practice on 1 October 2019 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We found the registered provider was not providing well led care and was in breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can read our report of that inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Armitage dental practice on our website www.cqc.org.uk.

As part of this inspection we asked:

  • Is it well-led?

When one or more of the five questions are not met, we require the service to make improvements and send us an action plan (requirement notice only). We then inspect again after a reasonable interval, focusing on the area where improvement was required.

Our findings were:

Are services well-led?

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

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breach we found at our inspection on 1 October 2019.

Background

Armitage Dental Practice is in Armitage, Staffordshire, and provides NHS and private dental treatment to adults and children.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. The practice has a small car park at the rear and car parking spaces are also available at the front of the practice and on local side roads.

The dental team includes two dentists and two dental nurses, one of whom is also the receptionist/practice manager. The practice has one treatment room and a separate decontamination room.

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.

During the inspection we checked that the registered provider’s action plan had been implemented. We reviewed a range of documents provided by the registered provider.

The practice is open: Monday 9.30am to 6.30pm, Tuesday 8.30am to 4.45pm, Wednesday 8.30am to 1pm, Thursday 8.30am to 5.15pm, Friday 9.30am to 4.45pm. The practice is closed for lunch for one hour each day, apart from Wednesday.

  • Our key findings were:

  • Infection prevention and control audits had an action plan and evidence of learning and action taken.

  • Risk assessments were available for each hazardous substance in use at the practice, we were told that material safety data sheets were available on-line for review.

  • Staff had completed training regarding data security awareness and the associate dentist had completed continuing professional development in respect of dental radiography.

  • The practice had implemented a system for recording, investigating and reviewing incidents or significant events with a view to preventing further occurrences and ensuring that improvements are made as a result.

  • Records relating to people employed at the practice were stored in compliance with legislation, taking into account current guidance.

  • The dentist had completed a “simple audit for prescribing activity” using a toolkit provided by the British Dental Association, taking into account the guidance provided by the Faculty of General Dental Practice.

  • We were not provided with evidence to demonstrate improvements to the practice protocols regarding auditing patient dental care records to check that necessary information is recorded.

  • Improvements had been made to the practice's complaint handling procedures, an accessible system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints by service users had been established, although the ‘Dental Practice Complaints Procedure – Information for Patients’ had not been fully completed.

  • Further work should be completed to ensure that all policies and procedures in the practice quality manual have been adapted to meet the needs of the practice.

  • Further work is required to fully complete the practice fire risk assessment, although the fire risk assessment states that staff have completed fire safety training, we were not provided with evidence to demonstrate this.

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

  • Improve the practice protocols regarding auditing patient dental care records to check that necessary information is recorded.

  • Take action to ensure the service takes into account the needs of patients with disabilities and to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

1 October 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on 1 October 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 not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Armitage Dental Practice is in Armitage, Rugeley, Staffordshire and provides NHS and private dental treatment to adults and children.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. The practice has a small car park at the rear and car parking spaces are also available at the front of the practice and on local side roads.

The dental team includes two dentists and two dental nurses, one of whom is also the receptionist/practice manager. The practice has one treatment room and a separate decontamination room.

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 43 CQC comment cards filled in by patients.

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

The practice is open: Monday 9.30am to 6.30pm, Tuesday 8.30am to 4.45pm, Wednesday 8.30am to 1pm, Thursday 8.30am to 5.15pm, Friday 9.30am to 4.45pm. The practice is closed for lunch for one hour each day, apart from Wednesday.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice appeared clean and well maintained. Slight damage was noted to the floor in the treatment room.
  • The provider had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance but these required updating to meet the needs of the practice.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Not all pieces of appropriate life-saving equipment were available on the day of inspection. When we discussed this with the practice, they immediately ordered the equipment.
  • 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 practice had a low turnover of staff.
  • 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 supported patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
  • 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 had systems in place to deal with complaints efficiently.
  • Some improvements were required to information governance arrangements.

We identified regulations the provider was not complying with. They must:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

Full details of the regulation the provider is not meeting are at the end of this report.

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

  • Implement audits for prescribing of antibiotic medicines taking into account the guidance provided by the Faculty of General Dental Practice.
  • Improve the practice protocols regarding auditing patient dental care records to check that necessary information is recorded.
  • Improve the practice's complaint handling procedures and establish an accessible system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints by service users.
  • Take action to ensure the service takes into account the needs of patients with disabilities and to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

5 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to check on the progress the dental practice had made to address the concerns we raised at our last inspection visit. We found that the rooms used as part of the surgery had been improved and organised to ensure that the control of the risk of cross infection would be continuously minimised.

We planned and discussed this inspection with the staff at the practice in advance. During the inspection we spoke with the dentist, the practice manager and the dental nurse.

7 August 2013

During a routine inspection

Our visit was discussed and arranged with the practice in advance. This was to ensure that people registered with the practice and staff working at the practice, were available to speak with us.

During the inspection we spoke with the provider (who was also one of the dentists at the practice) a dental nurse and the practice manager. At the visit we observed two consultations. We spoke with seven people at the time of this inspection. We spoke with two people who were at the dentist for an appointment and five people by telephone to ask them about their experiences of the service.

The people we spoke with were complimentary about the service they had received. Their comments included, "I feel very comfortable with the dentist" and "Always good treatment." People told us they were given the information they needed to be able to make an informed decision about their treatment.

Staff received a range of training so that they had up to date knowledge and skills to treat people safely.

People told us that the practice was clean and tidy. However we found that two rooms used as part of the surgery needed to be improved and organised to ensure that the control of the risk of cross infection would be continuously minimised.

There were systems in place to ask people their views about the service they received. We saw and received patient feedback which was totally positive. This meant that the provider could use the information they received to improve.