• Dentist
  • Dentist

Westminster House Dental Practice

11-13 Horseferry Road, Westminster, London, SW1P 2AH (020) 7976 5251

Provided and run by:
Rodericks Dental Partners Limited

All Inspections

30 June 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this announced comprehensive inspection on 30 June 2022 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 practice was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a Care Quality Commission, (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:

  • The dental clinic was visibly clean and well-maintained.
  • The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with medical emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff.
  • Safeguarding processes were in place and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The practice had staff recruitment procedures which reflected current legislation.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect and staff 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.
  • There was effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked as a team.
  • Staff and patients were asked for feedback about the services provided.
  • Complaints were dealt with positively and efficiently.
  • The dental clinic had information governance arrangements.

Background

Westminster House Dental Practice is part of Rodericks Dental Limited, a group Dental care provider.

Westminster House Dental Practice is in the London Borough of Westminster and provides NHS and private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

There is level access to the practice for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. The practice is located close to public transport services. The practice has made a number of adjustments to support patients with additional needs. These included step free access via a lift, adapted toilet facilities and a hearing induction loop. Language interpretation services were available where required.

The dental team includes eight dentists, one dental nurse and five trainee dental nurses, one dental hygienist. The clinical team are supported by two receptionists and a practice manager. The practice has four treatment rooms.

During the inspection we spoke with one dentist, the dental nurse, one of the trainee dental nurses, the practice manager and one of the organisations compliance managers. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Mondays – Thursdays between 8am and 8pm

Fridays between 8am and 6.30pm

Saturdays between 9am and 1pm

The practice had taken steps to improve environmental sustainability. For example, as part of the provider’s ‘Go Green’ policy there were systems to reduce paper waste by issuing paper free invoicing systems. Sensor lighting was installed at the practice to reduce energy consumption and staff car sharing for travel to and from work was encouraged wherever this was practical.

1 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our last inspection of 28 February 2013 found that, contrary to the practice's medical emergency policy, they did not have a child-sized dosage of adrenaline available in the practice. In addition, this had not been picked up during the regular checks on the emergency drugs undertaken by staff. The practice wrote to us and said that they had now included a child epipen for the emergency delivery of adrenaline in their emergency drugs kit and they had updated their emergency drugs checklist to reflect this.

We inspected the practice again on 1 May 2013 and saw that they now had a child epipen in place. We saw records of weekly checks on the emergency drugs and staff explained to us how this took place. However, the provider may wish to note that at the time of this inspection the new medical emergency drugs check sheet which included the child epipen was not in place.

On our last inspection we also found that appropriate infection control policies and procedures were not being followed, including procedures relating to the dating of sharps bins, availability of alcohol gel and the storage of sterilised instruments. On this inspection we found that these deficiencies had largely been corrected, though there were still some sharps bins that had not been dated.

28 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with said that "everything was explained very clearly", that the costs of treatments were made clear and that all their questions had been answered. All treatment took place in private consultation rooms. Written information about the practice was available in different languages and the practice had access to translators if necessary. The practice was accessible for people using wheelchairs.

In recent patient feedback 96% of respondents said they were "very satisfied" with their treatment. People using the service that we spoke with said the service was "wonderful" and that their medical history was checked at each visit. However, whilst the practice had a policy setting out what emergency drugs and equipment should be available, not all of the emergency drugs were available on the day of the inspection and recent checks on the drugs had not picked this up.

Whilst there were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection, not all of these were being followed.

Staff received appropriate professional development. They were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.