• Dentist
  • Dentist

Archived: Church Hill Dental Practice

78 Church Hill, Loughton, Essex, IG10 1LB (020) 8508 3104

Provided and run by:
Church Hill Dental Surgery

All Inspections

28 October 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on 28 October 2019 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Church Hill Dental Practice is in Loughton, Essex and provides NHS and some private treatment to adults and children.

The practice is located in a two storey converted house on a residential street. There is level access in to the premises and a ground floor treatment room available for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. There are two car parking spaces in front of the practice, and further public parking is available on the surrounding roads.

The dental team includes four dentists who work part time at the practice, one dental hygienist and one dental nurse. The clinical team is supported by a receptionist and a practice manager who is based at the provider’s nearby sister practice, which is separately registered with the CQC.

The practice is owned by an organisation and as a condition of registration must have a person registered with the Care Quality Commission as the registered manager. Registered managers have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run. The registered manager at Church Hill Dental Practice is one of the principal dentists.

On the day of inspection, we received feedback from 33 patients.

During the inspection we spoke with one dentist, one dental nurse, one receptionist and the practice manager from the provider’s other practice. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open Monday, Wednesday and Thursday from 9am to 5.30pm, and Tuesday and Friday from 9am to 2pm.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
  • The provider had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The provider had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff.
  • The provider had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The provider had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • Staff provided preventive care and supported patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
  • The provider had effective leadership and culture of continuous improvement.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team. Staff spoke openly about how much they enjoyed working at the practice.
  • The provider asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The provider dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
  • The provider had suitable information governance arrangements.

28 April 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Church Hill Dental Practice to carry out a responsive follow-up inspection to check that the required improvements to the service had been carried out. These had been identified at a previous visit in November 2013.

We found that the provider had a new policy in place that outlined effective procedures to follow when employing new staff at the practice. This included the requirement to undertake disclosure and barring checks, seek references and to provide identification documents.

We also found that the content of staff personnel files had improved and now contained all relevant documentation including evidence of qualifications to reflect that prospective employees were competent to undertake their role.

This meant that the provider now had effective recruitment procedures in place.

29 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service. We found that people's privacy and dignity was respected and treatment was planned in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People told us they were satisfied with the treatment they received at Church Hill Dental Practice. One person said, 'I am very satisfied with the treatment here and I have never had any pain afterwards.'

People confirmed that that they were given good information about planned treatments so they could make the right decision for them on how to proceed. One person told us, 'They explained what would happen and the options so I was clear and could decide'.

We saw that some arrangements were in place to support people's diverse needs. This included arrangements for information to be made available in other languages and having some facilities that supported people who used wheelchairs to access the service.

People were protected from the risk of abuse through clear policies, procedures and staff training and knowledge. However, we found that recruitment procedures were not robust and did not ensure that prospective staff were of suitable character and fit for the role.

The provider had a complaints procedure available. As no complaints had been received, we were unable to judge its effectiveness at this time.