Archived: Phillips Jones & Joseph

Updated 18 May 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the practice was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The inspection took place on the 30 March 2016 and was undertaken by a CQC inspector and a dental specialist adviser. Prior to the inspection we reviewed information submitted by the provider and information available on the provider’s website.

The methods used to carry out this inspection included speaking with the dentists, dental nurses, the practice manager, reception staff and patients on the day of the inspection, reviewing documents, completed patient feedback forms and observations. We received feedback from 30 patients.

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 therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 18 May 2016

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 30 March 2016 to ask the practice the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

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 providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Background

Phillips Jones and Joseph is a dental surgery located in the Royal Borough of Greenwich and provides NHS dental services. The demographics of the local area were mixed and the practice served patients from a range of social, economic and ethnic backgrounds.

The practice staffing consists of four dentists, six dental nurses, one receptionist and a practice manager who also carried out reception duties.

The practice is open from 8.45am to 5.30pm Monday to Thursdays and 8.45am to 3.30pm on Fridays. The practice is set out over two levels with two surgeries on the first floor and two on the second floor. There is no step free access to the building and is therefore not wheelchair accessible. Other facilities include: two patient waiting rooms (one on each level), reception area, decontamination room and a staff office.

The principal dentist is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the practice is run.

The inspection took place over one day and was carried out by a CQC inspector and a dentist specialist advisor.

We received feedback from 30 patients which included completed Care Quality Commission comment cards and speaking with patients during our inspection. Patient feedback was very positive about the service. They were also complimentary about the staff stating they were polite and courteous and provided excellent customer services. People referred to being treated with dignity and respect and receiving a high level of care and treatment. Information was given to patients appropriately and staff were helpful.

Our key findings were:

• Systems were in place for the provider to receive safety alerts from external organisations and they were shared appropriately with staff.
• Processes were in place for staff to learn from incidents and lessons learnt were discussed amongst staff.
• There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Dental instruments were decontaminated suitably.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned in line with current guidance.
• Patients were involved in their care and treatment planning so they could make informed decisions.
• There was appropriate equipment for staff to undertake their duties, and equipment was well maintained. However the compressor had not been serviced since 2011.
• The practice did not have access to an automated external defibrillator (AED) and the medical oxygen cylinder available on the premises was past its use by date.
• There were processes in place to safeguard patients.
• All clinical staff were up to date with their continuing professional development.
• The practice was carrying out risk assessments regularly.

• Governance arrangements were in place; however the practice were not always following their own policies and procedures.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Review the practice’s protocols for the use of rubber dam for root canal treatment giving due regard to guidelines issued by the British Endodontic Society.
• Review stocks of medicines and equipment and the system for identifying, and replenishing out-of-date stock.
• Review the availability of equipment to manage medical emergencies giving due regard to guidelines issued by the British National Formulary, the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the General Dental Council (GDC) standards for the dental team.
• Review the systems in place to assess, monitor and mitigate the various risks arising from undertaking of the regulated activities.