You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 March 2012
Date of Publication: 9 May 2012
Inspection Report published 9 May 2012 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

Our judgement

People were involved in the decisions about the treatment provided, which was based on their individual needs and preferences. People who used the service were treated with respect.

Overall, we found that Mr John Darren Broderick was meeting this essential standard.

User experience

People told us that Mr Broderick spent time and explained the dental treatments available to them and any costs involved.

People felt that their privacy and dignity was respected by all staff. Appropriate time was said to be available for private consultation.

People reported that they felt relaxed and confident with the options provided to them. One person indicated that Mr Broderick took time to talk about other matters to make the experience more pleasant.

Other evidence

We saw examples of patient information leaflets available in the practice waiting area for people to read. We were given a copy of all the information a new patient would be provided with.

Within the practice there was information on display about how to make a complaint if required and costs related to any treatments.

Observation confirmed that staff were supportive and willing to spend time listening to peoples’ views on the service.

Records seen confirmed that a recent patient satisfaction survey completed by the National Health Service. These demonstrated a high percentage satisfaction with the dentistry and service received.

All consultations took place in the dentist’s surgery and this afforded a good level of privacy. Although, it was noted that the door was not always closed. When discussed with the dentist it was recognised that this area of the practice was not normally an area where people would be passing.

We were told that staff meetings were held twice a year. Records seen confirmed that when matters were raised that were not routine, these were recorded.