You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 February 2015
Date of Publication: 24 March 2015
Inspection Report published 24 March 2015 PDF

Before people are given any examination, care, treatment or support, they should be asked if they agree to it (outcome 2)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Where they are able, give valid consent to the examination, care, treatment and support they receive.
  • Understand and know how to change any decisions about examination, care, treatment and support that has been previously agreed.
  • Can be confident that their human rights are respected and taken into account.

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 23 February 2015, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

Before patients received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with four patients who used the service, examined eight treatment records and observed consultation and treatment. We spoke with three staff members. We looked at the practice's consent to care and treatment policy. Patients told us the dentist always discussed treatment options with them after initial examination. Our observations confirmed this. One patient said, "I always feel involved in the process. They (staff) advise me on the best option to take". Another patient told us, "I always sign a consent form beforehand and they're always willing to answer any questions".

We looked at the most recent completed patient satisfaction questionnaires. We noted a high degree of satisfaction in areas of treatment discussion and involvement in decision making.

We saw that patients' written consent had been sought and obtained in a variety of areas. Each patient received written information, outlining proposed treatment, which was signed as read and agreed by the patient. We asked about matters of consent in relation to children registered at the practice. We were told children were accompanied by a parent or guardian, from whom written consent was always sought. One staff member said, "Sometimes older children will come in alone and leave their parents outside but we always bring them in if we need to discuss treatment". Staff were given training in matters related to consent. The practice also employed protocols to assist staff in decision making around matters of consent and a Mental Capacity Act (2005) protocol, which outlined the legal principles of consent. The staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in relation to the care of people who did not have the capacity to consent to treatment. The documentation we looked at and the observations we made showed appropriate consent had been sought for treatment. This was done either face-to-face during a consultation or by letter sent from the practice. All of the patients we spoke with were satisfied they had been fully consulted.