You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 December 2012
Date of Publication: 15 January 2013
Inspection Report published 15 January 2013 PDF | 82.2 KB

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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 6 December 2012, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

Patient’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

Patients said that they were satisfied with the service provided by the practice. They considered their dignity and privacy had been respected. They thought that staff were courteous and they liked the way in which staff were willing to answer any questions they asked. All dental treatments were completed in the privacy of the treatment rooms. Staff were careful to discuss patient’s treatments in private so they could not be inadvertently overheard.

There was a range of patient information leaflets that gave information relating to the range of treatments available. The practice also had access to over- the- phone interpretation 24 hours a day, seven days a week for patients whose first language was not English. They used a Language Identification Card in a face- to- face situation to determine which language a patient spoke.

Patients generally booked their next check up examination at the end of each treatment. The date was decided in consultation with the dentist who ensured that patient’s whose treatment needed closer supervision were seen more frequently. There was a recall system to remind patients when their next appointment was due. The appointments system avoided the need for patients to wait for too long in the reception lounge.

We looked at patient records to see how people and their representatives were involved in making decisions about their treatment. We saw that patient records contained a treatment plan, and that the plans had been signed by the patient. The plan showed the proposed dental work, the number of visits required, and the total cost of the treatment. The practice manager confirmed that the patients were given their own copy of the treatment plan.

The practice manager informed us that as well as having a written treatment plan, all treatments were discussed in detail with patients by the dentist treating them, and that this discussion included talking about health issues, and providing information about possible risks to teeth and gums. For example, the effects of oral hygiene and diet.

Patient records were on a computer system. Once the patient had signed their treatment plan, this was scanned onto their patient record on the computer. All records were secured and password protected. Most paper records that contained confidential personal information were held in a secure way so that only authorised people could access them.

We looked at other records to see how the practice ensured patients had their views about the practice taken into account. We saw that patients had access to feedback forms in reception, and a sealed box was beside the forms for people to put the completed cards in. We looked at the results of the feedback forms and saw that all the comments had been positive.

The practice manager told us that if a patient raised a concern, they were contacted to discuss it further. Any negative comments arising from surveys were discussed in staff meetings.

We saw that the clinic had a complaints procedure. The practice manager told us that when they received a complaint, the patient was always sent the clinics' complaint code of practice, along with a letter of acknowledgement and an explanation of what would happen next.