You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 18 March 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

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.

Inspection carried out on 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.