You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 21 February 2013
Date of Publication: 28 March 2013
Inspection Report published 28 March 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 21 February 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

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

We spoke with 4 patients including some of their older children during the inspection. People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. We were told: “I bring the whole family and treatment is always discussed” and “They are really good with the kids”.

There were two surgeries on the ground floor and although there were no permanent ramps at the entrance the practice kept suitable ramps available to enable access for patients with a physical disability. This meant that the service recognised diversity and had taken reasonable steps to assist people with a disability to use the service.

Records we viewed showed patients had signed consent for their dental treatment and although the main treatment plans were held on computer we saw that consent forms were signed and kept as a separate paper record.

Electronic records outlined the treatment agreed and respective costs. People we spoke with told us that options were discussed, to allow them to make informed choices about treatment they received. This meant that patients had sufficient information about their treatments and were able to sign informed consent.