Myorthodontist - Cedar House - Worthing

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

Staff had carried out a disability access audit and had an action plan to continually improve access for patients.

Staff described the reasonable adjustments they had made to ensure the practice was accessible. The practice had access to large print or alternative formats of information and a magnifying glass to support patients with impaired vision. A hearing induction loop was available to support patients with a hearing impairment. Staff had access to language translation services.

Staff were clear about the importance of providing emotional support to patients when delivering care. Staff at the practice were longstanding with a good knowledge of their patient population and demographics. We saw that staff at the practice worked hard to ensure that every patient felt understood and had their needs met. Staff supported children with a learning disability or autism by providing extra time and ensuring that both patient and parent/carer were involved in planning and treatment discussions.

The practice displayed its opening hours and provided information on their website.

The frequency of appointments was agreed between the orthodontist and the patient, giving due regard to nationally recognised guidance.

The practice provided telephone numbers for patients needing emergency dental treatment during the working day and when the practice was not open.

At the time of our inspection, patients who needed an urgent appointment were offered one in a timely manner. When the practice was unable to offer an urgent appointment, they worked with partner organisations to support urgent access for patients.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.