Aylesbury Dental Health Centre

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 used a clinical dental technician to provide dental appliances. However, at the time of the inspection, the provider could not demonstrate that the dental laboratory used was registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Following the inspection, the provider submitted assurance that the registration status of the dental laboratory had been verified.

We looked at a selection of patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was in line with recognised guidance. We saw evidence the 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 in place for the prescribing and dispensing of medicines and carried out antimicrobial prescribing audits. However, the antimicrobial prescribing audit was not reflective of current practice. During the inspection, we identified instances where antibiotics had been prescribed outside of current guidance. These prescribing practices had not been identified through the provider's own audit processes, reducing assurance that prescribing activity was being effectively monitored and reviewed.

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 felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

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.