You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 July 2013
Date of Publication: 23 August 2013
Inspection Report published 23 August 2013 PDF | 78.07 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 19 July 2013, sent a questionnaire to people who use the service and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. People told us the dentists checked their medical history and any changes to their health before an examination. We looked at four people’s records who had recently visited the practice. The records confirmed people had been consulted about any changes in their medical history before their examinations. We saw records made by dentists demonstrated discussion of on-going treatment and oral health advice. For example, dietary advice and assessment of the mouth, gums and teeth and smoking cessation advice for patients that smoked.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Records showed, and the staff we spoke with confirmed, that they had completed recent first aid training. The practice had emergency resuscitation equipment for both adults and children. Oxygen and medicines for use in an emergency were available at the practice. Records were completed to show that daily checks were completed to ensure the equipment and emergency medication was safe to use.

We checked the provider’s radiation protection file as x-rays were taken and developed at the practice. We also looked at x-ray equipment in use at the practice and talked with staff about x-ray use. We found there were suitable arrangements in place to ensure the safety of the equipment. We saw the provider’s records for radiation protection had been assessed by an independent expert within the required timescales and had been found to be maintained in good order.

For accessing out of hours treatment for emergencies the receptionist told us that an answer phone message detailed how to access emergency treatment. Each day the practice was open emergency treatment slots were made available for people with urgent dental needs. This meant people could access treatment when they needed it.

People’s care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that protected them from unlawful discrimination. The provider had assessed the building with regard to people with mobility needs. The practice was accessible for people with limited mobility or for people who used wheelchairs. Consulting rooms were all on the ground floor. The rooms allowed space to accommodate a person using a wheelchair and a carer, if required. There was an accessible patient toilet at the practice. The reception desk was at a suitable height for people using wheelchairs to sign their records and speak to the receptionist at eye level. The practice manager told us that there were some wheelchair users registered at the practice and that they were able to meet their dental needs.

The provider had considered additional needs of other disabled people. For example there was a loop system at the practice to benefit people who used hearing aids when conversing with staff. Consideration had also been given to the needs of people with visual impairment in the layout of the premises. We spoke with the provider who showed they also had a good awareness of the cultural or spiritual needs that could impact upon patient informed choice with dental treatment.