Kendal Dental and Implant Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged.

The practice offered dental implants. Staff obtained consent, kept detailed records and had access to the appropriate equipment for the placement of implants. We considered the arrangements for visiting dental professionals and noted there were no formal protocols outlining responsibilities, such as the use of practice stock for dispensing antibiotics or who would issue prescriptions. Additionally, there was no agreement regarding access to emergency medicines and equipment.

We looked at a random sample of patient care records. Most of the information recorded was in line with recognised guidance. However, in examples of patients having been booked in for an NHS examination and oral health assessment, it was not made clear to patients whether they were seeing a dental therapist or a dentist, and what treatment would be covered by NHS charges. In conversations with clinical staff there was a clear lack of understanding of protocols for delivery of NHS treatment by dental therapists.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment, however, records showed that not all information and options were given to ensure informed consent in line with legislation and guidance, for example, where some treatments would be delivered as a private patient. Staff we spoke with demonstrated their understanding of responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw evidence the dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took.

The practice had systems for prescribing of medicines in line with current guidance. They carried out antimicrobial prescribing audits. We observed that there was no effective system in place to manage stock of medicines. Staff were unable to say how much stock of antibiotics they held, how much had been dispensed or which members of staff had drawn down stock for dispensing. Prescribing audits had not identified this.

The practice were unable demonstrate any system in place to receive, manage and act on safety alerts and clinical updates. For example, we described a recent alert issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in relation to oropharyngeal airways (equipment used in an emergency). None of the staff could tell us about this.

Patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national faster diagnosis pathways.

Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.