You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 September 2013
Date of Publication: 1 November 2013
Inspection Report published 01 November 2013 PDF

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 30 September 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People told us that they had been given good information by the dentist which enabled them to be involved in decisions about their treatment. One person said, “The dentist gave me all the possible options in writing. Eventually I made my decision and they said I had made the right decision. All the options were discussed so I was confident they were choosing the right treatment for me.” Another person said, “I have been very much involved in discussions about my treatment. I have been given full opportunities to consider the pros and cons.”

One of the dentists told us they liked people to book in their appointments for the whole course of treatment, so they would know what was involved. For example, they would then know how long it would be until they got their dentures.

A person who used the service told us that they had been offered an appointment to fit in with their hospital appointment. They said they could have seen a named dentist if they had been willing to wait longer. Another person said, “I have been able to have appointments at convenient times. The Tuesday late evenings are very useful”.

Although the service was delivered in a historic listed building, building work had been accomplished to enable level access from the street. A toilet was provided that was accessible to wheelchair users. People had requested a ‘buggy park’ and this had been provided. The NHS service was largely delivered on the first floor but staff told us that a downstairs treatment room was made available for people who could not manage the stairs. Private patients were treated upstairs if they needed urgent appointments. All dentists and nurses worked with both parts of the service.

All the people who spoke to us said they found the reception staff friendly and helpful. After checking in, NHS patients were directed to the waiting room on the first floor. Staff told us that one of the dentists had carried out an audit of people’s experience in the waiting rooms. This had covered people’s comfort, and requirements for magazines and televisions. Seating in the upstairs waiting room was improved and a subscription for a magazine was taken on. We saw that the chairs in the upstairs waiting room were all hard, while there was a choice on the ground floor of chairs and sofas. We brought this to the attention of two dentists who said that they needed to ensure there were enough chairs upstairs for everyone to sit down, but they would consider the introduction of one sofa to provide choice for people.

We saw information was available in the waiting rooms for people about treatments and costs. The complaints policy was displayed both in the waiting rooms on the notice board and in the information folder. Two of the people who spoke to us said that if they needed it they would look on the practice’s website. We did not see it there. We looked at the complaints folder which recorded any complaints received by the practice. One complaint had been received in June 2013 with regard to the fee charged for a person who failed to attend their appointment. We saw that a thorough investigation had taken place and that good communication with the complainant had been made.