• Dentist
  • Dentist

Naidu & Naidu Dental Care

132 Gubbins Lane, Romford, Essex, RM3 0DP (01708) 341587

Provided and run by:
Naidu & Naidu Dental Care

All Inspections

17 April 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on 17 April 2018 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

Naidu and Naidu Dental Care is in Harold Wood, Romford in the London Borough of Havering and provides NHS and private treatment to patients of all ages.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. Car parking spaces are available near the practice.

The dental team includes five dentists, the practice manager, five dental nurses, two who also cover reception duties and one dental hygienist. The practice has three treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by a partnership 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 Naidu and Naidu Dental Care was the practice manager.

On the day of inspection we collected 48 CQC comment cards filled in by patients and spoke with three other patients.

During the inspection we spoke with one dentist, one dental nurse, two receptionists and the practice manager. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Mondays 8am to 6pm

Tuesdays to Fridays 8am to 5pm

Saturdays 8am to 1pm

Our key findings were:

  • The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
  • The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk.
  • The practice had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The practice 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.
  • The practice was providing preventive care and supporting patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system met patients’ needs.
  • The practice had effective leadership and culture of continuous improvement.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The practice dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
  • The practice had suitable information governance arrangements.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

  • Review the practice’s arrangements for receiving and responding to patient safety alerts, recalls and rapid response reports issued from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and through the Central Alerting System (CAS), as well as from other relevant bodies, such as Public Health England (PHE).
  • Review the fire safety risk assessment to ensure that this is carried out in line with current guidance.

20 December 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. During our previous inspection in May 2013 we found the provider was not following current guidance in relation to the cleaning or storage of instruments and paintwork and furniture was stained in communal areas.

During this inspection we found the provider had implemented a new system that ensured instruments in treatment rooms were pouched and date stamped prior to their use. A new decontamination room had been built. People told us they found the environment to be clean, and that staff wore protective clothing. One person said 'I have no complaints, I didn't see anything bad, they always give me glasses to wear.' Another person said 'it's really good, it's very clean, they wear their equipment.' We observed that the service was visibly clean, staff were trained in infection control and demonstrated their procedures for decontaminating and sterilising dental equipment.

23 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect by staff at the service. One person said "everything's fine. We are happy here.' People told us that treatment options were explained to them and that they were able to have confidential discussions in private.

We found that treatment plans were in place which included details of any fees payable. These were signed to indicate people gave consent to treatment. The service took details of the medical histories of people before providing treatment to them.

People told us that they found the environment to be generally clean, and that staff wore protective clothing. However, we observed that the fabric on furnishings in communal areas to be stained, as well as scuff marks and some staining to walls. Staff told us of infection control procedures in the service. However, we found that the provider was not following current guidance in relation to the cleaning of instruments.

We found that staff had regular training, including dealing with medical emergencies and infection control. People told us they knew how to make complaints, and we found that there was a complaints procedure in place.