You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 February 2014
Date of Publication: 16 April 2014
Inspection Report published 16 April 2014 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 4 February 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

Patient's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

Patients who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. Staff we spoke with described how they talked with patients about treatment options. As part of our inspection we spoke with four patients. One patient said “We discussed all options in detail and I chose an implant.” Another patient said “I have been given choices of treatments to choose from.”

We looked at care records for thirteen patients who used the service. Treatment plans clearly described the different options discussed and the associated costs. We saw that the provider gave each patient who was receiving treatment a treatment plan and kept a copy with the patient records. The patients we spoke with confirmed that they received treatment plans that detailed the treatment they had agreed to. One patient said their treatment plan was changed to reflect a change in circumstances. This was in accordance with the General Dental Council’s (GDC) mandatory guidance set out in their ‘Standards’ - September 2013 edition. The GDC is an independent body that dental professionals must be registered with to work in the United Kingdom. This meant that patients who used the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their overall care and treatment, which helped them make informed decisions.

We saw that the provider had a complaints policy and displayed a complaints poster in the waiting area and in the patient information folder. The complaints policy provided full contact details for the Dental Complaints Service (website, telephone number and full address) which is a free and impartial service that deals with complaints about private treatment. It also provided the contact details for the Care Quality Commission and the GDC who regulate dental practices. The regulator’s details were also within the patient information folder which was freely accessible to all patients. In addition the provider displayed their registration certificates on the walls. We saw in the reception area GDC SMILE booklets where made available to patients which provided further information on ways to complain. The provider had made provision for anonymous feedback through suggestion boxes and comments book. This meant that the provider valued their patient’s views and gave them various opportunities to express them including all the information they needed to make a complaint.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There was wheelchair access to the ground floor surgery and a purpose built washroom. Staff told us that they would use a translation service if it was required. In addition for those patients who experienced difficulty in understanding the proposed treatment they used models, diagrams and images on the computer screen to assist their explanations. This meant that patient's diversity and human rights were respected.