Auckland Cosmetic Dental Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found this practice was providing well-led 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 Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The practice had a governance system that included policies and procedures, which were accessible to staff and were reviewed on a regular basis.

Systems and processes were embedded, and the inspection did not highlight any significant issues or omissions. Areas requiring improvement were acted on immediately.

Staff were aware of the importance of protecting patients’ personal information. Staff password protected patients’ electronic care records, and paper records were stored securely and complied with General Data Protection Regulations.

There were mostly effective processes for identifying and managing risks, investigating incidents and accidents, and for receiving and acting on safety alerts. However, we noted that the practice did not have an effective process for receiving Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) alerts. These alerts inform healthcare professionals about potential safety risks associated with medicines and medical devices. The practice acted immediately and provided assurance that this would be embedded going forward.

The practice had systems and processes for learning, quality assurance and continuous improvement. This included undertaking audits according to recognised guidance.

Concerns and complaints were responded to appropriately, and outcomes were discussed to share learning and for improvement.

We noted innovative approaches to providing person centred care. For example, the practice used a red, amber and green (RAG) rating system when talking though patients’ treatment. Red for treatment that needed attending to more urgently, amber to be monitored and addressed and green meant that things were ok. Patients commented that this helped them to understand their treatment and helped them prioritise. A summary document is also given to patients using the RAG rating about treatment discussed.

Staff had clear responsibilities, and systems of accountability to support good governance.

The practice gathered feedback from patients, the public and external partners, and responded accordingly

The practice had taken steps to improve environmental sustainability. For example, the practice is mostly digital and working towards being paper free. The practice also recycles and switches lights and machines off when not in use.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.