Mydentist - Claremont Bank - Shrewsbury Also known as mydentist

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found this practice was providing effective 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 Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged.

Staff kept up-to-date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

The practice offered dental implant treatment. Staff described the processes used to plan and provide implant treatment, and appropriate equipment was available.

A review of patient care records found that the information recorded was generally in line with recognised guidance. However, some records did not consistently demonstrate the planning and delivery of implant treatment. We also identified instances where clinical record templates had not been appropriately adjusted.

The practice’s auditing protocols had identified these areas for improvement, and action plans had been developed to address the findings. However, our review of records on the day showed that further work was needed to ensure all identified issues were fully resolved.

We saw evidence that dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

The practice had systems for prescribing medicines in line with current guidance. They carried out antimicrobial prescribing audits. While audit results were generally positive, the practice should ensure findings are used to identify individual areas of improvement in antimicrobial prescribing.

Patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national faster diagnosis pathways.

Staff had access to opportunities to develop their skills and take on additional responsibilities. Processes were in place to support staff development, including access to training, career progression discussions, and opportunities to undertake additional roles. Some staff felt that access to further development opportunities was not always consistent or progressed within expected timescales. This feedback was shared with the leadership team as part of the inspection.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.