• Dentist
  • Dentist

Ilford Dental Practice

216 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1QE (020) 8478 0709

Provided and run by:
Mr. Anantkumar Patel

All Inspections

25 August 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook a follow up focused inspection of Ilford Dental Practice on 25 August 2021. This inspection was carried out to review in detail the actions taken by the registered provider to improve the quality of care and to confirm that the practice was now meeting legal requirements.

The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist advisor.

We undertook a comprehensive inspection of Ilford Dental Practice on 10 June 2021 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We found the registered provider was not providing safe, effective and well led care and was in breach of Regulations 12- Safe Care and Treatment and 17- Good Governance of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can read our report of that inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Dental Surgery on our website www.cqc.org.uk.

As part of this inspection we asked:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations. The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 10 June 2021.

Are services effective?

We found this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 10 June 2021.

Are services well-led?

We found this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 10 June 2021.

Background

Ilford Dental Practice is in the London Borough of Redbridge and provides private dental treatment to adults and children. The practice is accessible by Transport for London rail and bus services and is within easy access to local amenities including banks, supermarkets and a post office. The practice is not suitable for people who are in wheelchairs as there is no lift on the premise to access treatment rooms on the first floor. Paid parking spaces are available near the practice.

The practice is located on the first floor of the building which is accessed using two flights of stairs. The first floor has four treatment rooms (two viable-one functional), a treatment room which is now the decontamination room, an office area used for storage, a toilet, reception area and a waiting area.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal and only dentist there and is supported by two GDC registered dental nurses- one of whom serves as the reception staff and was furloughed at the time of our inspection. The principal dentist who is the responsible individual has a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

The practice is open Monday to Friday from 10:00am to 3pm. When the practice is closed, out of hours services are provided by the NHS 111 services.

The provider did not have a practice website at the time of the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with the principal dentist and the dental nurse. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice still needed redecoration, refurnishing and general refurbishment.
  • There were now arrangements in place to monitor staff training.
  • Improvements were made in relation to infection prevention and control and fire safety.
  • The practice had some policies and procedures to govern activities, however some were not current.
  • The disposal of clinical waste had improved.
  • Equipment such as the autoclave, ultrasonic bath, dental chair, suction and compressor were now serviced as per manufacturer’s guidance.
  • Arrangements to assess and mitigate risks of fire at the practice had improved.
  • Arrangements were now in place to ensure the safety of X-ray equipment.
  • Emergency equipment and medicines were now available as described in recognised guidance.
  • Improvements were still needed to ensure dental care records were stored properly and as per recommended guidance.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

  • Improve the practice's protocols and procedures for the use of X-ray equipment, namely, local rules in compliance with The Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 and Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017 and taking into account the guidance for Dental Practitioners on the Safe Use of X-ray Equipment.
  • Take action to ensure the clinicians take into account the guidance provided by the Faculty of General Dental Practice when completing dental care records.
  • Take action to ensure the practice stores dental care records securely.

10 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this announced inspection on 10 June 2021 under section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a Care Quality Commission, (CQC), inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we usually ask five key questions, however due to the ongoing pandemic and to reduce time spent on site, only the following three questions were asked:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it well-led?

These are three of the five questions that form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found this practice was not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found this practice was not providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found this practice was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Ilford Dental Practice is in the London Borough of Redbridge and provides private dental treatment to adults and children. The practice is accessible by Transport for London rail and bus services and is within easy access to local amenities including banks, supermarkets and a post office. The practice is not suitable for people who are in wheelchairs as there is no lift on the premise to access treatment rooms on the first floor. Paid parking spaces are available near the practice.

The practice is located on the first floor of the building which is accessed using two flights of stairs. The first floor has four treatment rooms (two viable-one functional), a treatment room which is now the decontamination room, an office area used for storage, a toilet, reception area and a waiting area.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal and only dentist there and is supported by two GDC registered dental nurses- one of whom serves as the reception staff and was furloughed at the time of our inspection. The principal dentist who is the responsible individual has a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

The practice is open Monday to Friday from 10:00am to 3pm. When the practice is closed, out of hours services are provided by the NHS 111 services. They did not have a website at the time of the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with the principal dentist and the dental nurse. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice needed redecoration, refurnishing and general refurbishment.
  • There was inadequate arrangements in place to monitor staff training.
  • The treatment room which was used to deliver care and treatment appeared visibly clean.
  • Improvements were needed in relation to infection prevention and control and fire safety.
  • Not all risks to service users were appropriately assessed and managed.
  • The practice had some policies and procedures to govern activities, however some were not current.
  • Clinical waste was not disposed suitably.
  • Equipment such as the autoclave, ultrasonic bath, dental chair, suction and compressor had not been serviced as per manufacturer’s guidance.
  • There were ineffective arrangements to assess and mitigate risks of fire at the practice.
  • The practice did not have suitable arrangements to ensure safety of the X-ray equipment.
  • Emergency equipment and medicines were not available as described in recognised guidance.
  • The practice did not have systems to keep dental professionals up to date with current evidence-based practice.
  • Dental care records we checked were not completed as per recommended guidance and were stored insecurely.
  • The team was qualified to undertake their roles; however, they had limited systems to ensure they kept up to date with emerging guidance.
  • The dental team was long-standing which meant there was continuity of care and treatment for patients.

We identified regulations the provider was not complying with. They must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

  • Improve the decoration and overall aesthetic of the premise.
  • Take action to improve the system for sending electronic referrals.

The CQC have received formal notification from the provider- Mr Ananatkumar Patel that they have ceased the delivery of all regulated activities from the registered location as of 15 June 2021. The location will remain closed for a period of four weeks whilst the provider takes steps to rectify the concerns raised during the inspection of 10 June 2021. The Commission will review the improvements at a follow up inspection.

18 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection in order to check whether the provider had achieved compliance in the seven non-compliant outcome areas identified at the previous announced scheduled inspection on the 11 December 2013. Following the inspection last year, we served five warning notices on the provider, outlining the non-compliance and where improvement needed to be made. We had moderate concerns in two other outcome areas. We had told the provider to be complaint by 26 February 2014. The provider sent us an action plan before this date, which stated that the improvements had been made.

During this inspection we spoke with the registered dentist, the associate dentist, two dental nurses and a receptionist. We did not speak with people who used the service at this visit but the two people we spoke with at the previous inspection visit were positive about the quality of their care. We found that the provider had now made the required improvements in order to achieve compliance in the seven outcomes that were previously non-compliant.

There were now arrangements in place to deal with a patient collapse, and appropriate policies and practices were being used to reduce the risk of infection. Staff told us they felt well supported, and showed us their training certificates and their professional development plans.

The provider had systems in place to seek the views of people using the service and was carrying out audits to continuously improve upon the quality of care and treatment. Records were now being stored in a safe and secure way.

Following the previous inspection, we referred our findings to Environmental Health and the local Fire Safety Assessor. At this inspection we found that these organisations were satisfied with the actions taken by the provider.

11 December 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of the visit, the registered dentist was off on sick leave. We spoke with two other members of staff.

We spoke with two patients who were happy with the quality of care they received. However, we found areas of concern. For example, there were no arrangements in place to deal with a patient collapse. The dentist had a resuscitation kit containing an oxygen canister that expired in 1994.

Systems to reduce the risk and spread of infection were limited. We were unable to see an infection control policy. The staff were not able to answer some of our answers related to infection prevention and control. The sterilisation solutions used to clean equipment in between use were all in unlabelled bottles and it was not known what the solutions were. We saw two bags of clinical waste and five bags of general waste in a back room. This room was not lockable and could have been accessed by any person attending the surgery.

We spoke with one member of staff who had worked at the surgery for several years. They said they had not received any training. We were unable to see any staff files as these were all unavailable.

We asked the staff about any systems in to regularly assess and monitor the quality of services provided. They were not aware of any audits or patient surveys.

All of the patient records were in paper format and no computer records were kept. The records were stored in unlocked rooms and personal data was not protected.