Maison Smile

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found this practice was providing responsive 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 Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The provider described the reasonable adjustments they had made to ensure the practice was accessible. The practice was not accessible for those in wheelchairs as all areas of the practice could only be accessed via descending stairs. This was communicated to patients ahead of registration and were instead directed to two other nearby NHS practices.

Accessible facilities available at the time of inspection included electronic devices (with text enlarging facility) for completing and signing forms digitally, and language translation services were available for those who needed it (Staff collectively spoke 9 languages). They also had various grades of reading glasses for visually impaired people and a hearing loop was available for those with hearing difficulty.

Staff were clear about the importance of providing emotional support to patients when delivering care. For example, when patients were distressed or upset staff provided reassurance, extra time was allocated, and clinicians took time to explain the treatment process. For those who were extremely nervous, they were offered and referred to a local sedation provider.

Staff had carried out a disability access audit and had formulated an action plan to continually improve access for patients.

The practice supported more vulnerable members of society such as patients living with dementia or adults and children with a learning disability. Patients with complex physical and learning disabilities were referred to local community dental services.

The practice displayed its opening hours and provided information on their website, shop-front window and patient information leaflet.

The frequency of appointments was agreed between the dentist and the patient, giving due regard to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

At the time of our inspection, patients who needed an urgent appointment were offered one in a timely manner. When the practice was unable to offer an urgent appointment, they worked with partner organisations to support urgent access for patients.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.