You are here

Archived: Dr Afzal Rehman - Park Lane

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 July 2013
Date of Publication: 15 August 2013
Inspection Report published 15 August 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 11 July 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. The practice provided a solely orthodontic service to patients. All patients had to be referred by another dentist. Nearly all the treatment was provided to NHS patients. After an initial consultation following the referral the patient was provided with a treatment plan. If a patient attended privately they would still need to have to been referred by their own dentist. Private patients were provided with a letter detailing the cost of consultation and the course of treatment.

We spoke with six patients and parents of children who had used the practice. They confirmed they were well informed by the dentist about the course of treatment and were aware that it was provided as part of their NHS treatment. People told us they had been shown their treatment plans and parents told us the dentist took the time to explain to the children what the treatment involved and how they should best manage their aftercare.

The practice obtained written consent from the patients before commencing any treatment. If the patient was under 18 the consent form was signed by the parent. All the patients and parents we spoke with confirmed they had signed a consent form before treatment commenced. We saw a sample of treatment plans and all contained the required signatures.

We saw a sample of medical histories. These were completed on the first appointment and dated. A sign in the reception area reminded patients they must inform the dentist of any changes to their medical record. The forms were signed to say when they had been checked and updated.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected. All the people we spoke with said that all the staff were polite and respectful. Discussions took place with the dentist in the privacy of the treatment room. People told us that they were given appropriate information and support regarding their treatment and aftercare.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected. The surgery was converted from the ground floor of large house and was all on one level. This meant there was easy access for people with mobility problems. There was a ramp access to the rear of the building and the surgery provided ample to space to accommodate wheelchairs if required. The dental nurse was aware of how to access the NHS translation service if this was required. We were told that generally if there was a language problem they would ask the patient to attend with a friend or relative who could translate. The dentist told us that approximately 90% of the patients were children and nearly all spoke English.