You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 January 2014
Date of Publication: 20 March 2014
Inspection Report published 20 March 2014 PDF | 71.91 KB

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 January 2014, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their treatment. Staff told us people were given written information and encouraged to read it so that they understood the treatments. The practice also had a website with information for people relating to their opening hours, treatments available and testimonials from other patient’s. The provider may find it useful to note that information on the website regarding the staffing team was not up to date.

The dentist told us they used a camera and pictures to help people understand the problem they may have. Treatment options were explained sometimes using models to allow people to understand the difference between their options. For example the dentist said “we used models to show people the difference between bridges and implants”. An estimate was drawn up with a summary of the findings and treatment options and costs. The dentist told us people were required to sign the estimate, which also acted as a consent form.

We were unable to speak with people during the visit however we reviewed feedback from people. They were positive about the service and indicated that they felt informed and involved in decision making.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected. There was no step-free access to the building; however the practice referred people to a dental practice close by if they had mobility problems. There were two private treatment rooms. There was an appropriate system in place for people to access the service out of hours. This consisted of a message on their answer machine and a contact telephone number for the local NHS out of hour’s dental service.