You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 May 2013
Date of Publication: 1 June 2013
Inspection Report published 01 June 2013 PDF | 87.77 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 22 May 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and received feedback from people using comment cards. We reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and their views were taken into account in the way their treatment was planned and delivered.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with seven people who used the service. They told us the staff were friendly and treated them with respect and maintained their privacy. Two people we spoke with told us the staff were aware of people's anxieties when visiting the dentist and did their best to alleviate them.

The dentists and their nurses demonstrated they had a good understanding of the needs of children and young people when visiting the practice. One parent gave us a good example of how the dentists ensured that communication was age-appropriate. They told us how staff encouraged children and young people with good dental habits and oral hygiene.

All seven people we spoke with felt confident and comfortable with the practice staff. People told us the dentists took trouble to explain treatment options to them and gave them time to ask questions in order to make an informed decision. We saw people were given a copy of their treatment plan, including the costs. People told us the dentist always asked for their verbal consent to any treatment actions.

We saw examples of a range of patient information leaflets available and given to people using the service. We were told they could be obtained in other formats for people if required. We saw the practice had a policy to ensure the equality and diversity needs of people were met. Staff were aware of how to access this policy.

There was a ‘suggestion box’ in the reception area together with pen and paper for people to anonymously make their comments or suggestions. This meant that the views of people were sought by the provider to inform service provision. We were shown the results of a recent survey of people who used the service. Over 90% were happy with most aspects of service provision. However only 50% of people felt they had been informed of the fees prior to treatment; and only 14% of people knew about the complaints policy. The provider told us they were aware of these areas for improvement and were addressing them. The comments people had made were "excellent care”. The staff are pleasant and helpful".

Treatment records seen showed evidence of discussions with people regarding treatment options and decisions made. The dentists and their nurses demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people who have learning difficulties or have some memory impairment. They had some knowledge regarding "best interests" meetings where an individual's treatment plan could be discussed with other professionals involved in their care.

The complaints procedure was available and displayed in the reception area. The process for making a complaint and the timeframe for a response, were clearly identified in the document displayed. We saw there had been one complaint in the last 12 months. We read that it had been handled appropriately and in line with the procedure displayed. The outcome of the process for the complainant was recorded.