Chiswick Park Dental Practice

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.

Staff broadly kept up-to-date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

The practice offered dental implants. Staff obtained full consent, kept detailed records and had access to the appropriate equipment for the placement of implants.

The practice offered conscious sedation for patients through an external agency. The practice’s systems included checks before and after treatment, emergency equipment requirements, medicines management, sedation equipment checks, and staff availability and training.

We looked at 12 patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was not always in line with recognised guidance. Where templates were used to populate the dental care records, they were not always tailored for each patient accordingly and did not always reflect the treatment delivered. Staff obtained patients’ consent for most treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, we did not always see that consent was recorded in the patient records for patients undergoing sedation. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

Dentists did not always justify, grade and report on the radiographs they took. Patients were referred externally for Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) imaging. However, the provider could not demonstrate that clinicians had completed required training for referral of patients for CBCT, nor for reporting on the images received. We saw CBCT images returned with no report. The provider was unable to show us a service level agreement with the external CBCT agency, detailing what the expectations were for reporting on the images.

The practice had systems for prescribing and dispensing of medicines. Improvements could be made to ensure that prescribing of antibiotics was in line with guidance provided by the College of General Dentistry. Staff carried out antimicrobial prescribing audits.

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. Improvements were required to ensure patient referrals to other dental or health care professionals are centrally monitored to ensure they are received in a timely manner and not lost.

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.