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 get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patient's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We reviewed care records for thirteen patients and saw that they included details of each patient's medical history. We saw that these were regularly updated and signed by patients. Staff told us that patient records were kept electronically and each time a patient attended an appointment they would review their records and take note of any medical alert warning. We saw that the system alerted staff if the patients’ records included a medical warning for example, an allergy. Staff also told us that the dentist would always verbally check the medical history with the patient before each treatment started. All the patients we spoke with confirmed this. One patient told us “They always ask me about my medical history and update my records.” This meant that patients were assured of receiving treatment that protected their safety and welfare.

Patient's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. We saw that the dentists completed and recorded an oral examination which included soft tissue checks, checks for gum disease and cancer before starting any courses of treatment. We saw that treatment plans, options, including all costs and risks, had been explained and recorded and a copy given to patients prior to treatment. One record showed that a patient asked to be referred for treatment under sedation. We saw that the dentist made the referral. Written consent was sought from patients to indicate they agreed to the treatment they had selected. This meant that patients received the treatment that was specifically planned for them.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. For example, there was an answer machine message that gave details of how to get dental treatment out of normal surgery hours. The practice telephone number was visible from outside the premises. Staff told us that there were emergency appointments available each day for their patients. This meant that patients who used the service had access to necessary care, treatment and support.

We saw that fire exits and routes were clearly displayed. We also saw staff had access to emergency equipment such as oxygen and emergency medication. We checked the contents of the emergency drugs box and saw that the drugs were within their expiry dates. The practice also had a defibrillator. A defibrillator is an apparatus used for issuing a measured electrical current to a patient’s heart to restore normal heart rhythm in cases of cardiac arrest.

We saw from the staff training records that all the staff received training in 2013 in Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and how to manage a medical emergency. This meant that patients were supported by trained and informed staff in an emergency situation.

We saw that risk assessments had been completed for such areas as radiation, needle stick injuries, health and safety and risk management plans. This meant that the provider had processes in place to manage the risks against foreseeable emergencies.