You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 8 June 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 8 June 2016 to ask the practice the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services effective?

We found that this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services caring?

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services responsive?

We found that this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services well-led?

We found that this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Background

Moat Road Dental Care is a dental practice providing mostly NHS dental treatment, with private treatment options for patients. The practice is owned and managed by the corporate provider Southern Dental. The practice is located in East Sussex. There are a few car parks close to the premises in the area.

The practice has six treatment rooms, one of which is on the ground floor.

The practice provides dental services to both adults and children. The practice provides mostly NHS treatment (90%). Services provided include general dentistry, dental hygiene, crowns and bridges, and root canal treatment. Patients also have the option of private treatment such as implants and cosmetic dentistry.

The practice’s opening hours are – Monday to Friday 8.30am to 5.30pm and Saturday 8am to 1pm.

Access for urgent treatment outside of opening hours is by telephoning the practice and following the instructions on the answerphone message or by telephoning the 111 NHS service.

The practice manager is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as a registered manager. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the practice is run.

The practice has six dentists (three of which work between other practices in the southern dental group); two hygienists, one of which is also a therapist, two qualified dental nurses, two receptionists, three trainee dental nurses and a practice manager. We spoke with three dentists, two nurses, one receptionist, the practice manager, the group’s head of compliance and the compliance manager. We spoke also spoke with two patients to get their views and experiences of the practice.

We provided CQC comment cards prior to our inspection and patients completed four cards. We spoke with patients and reviewed feedback that practice had received through the NHS Friends and family test (FFT).

Our key findings were:

• The practice was visibly clean and tidy.

• Records showed there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of patients.

• Patients at the practice gave mostly positive feedback about their experiences at the practice.

• Patients said they were treated with dignity and respect.

• The practice was well equipped.

• Dentists identified the different treatment options, and discussed these with patients.

• Patients’ confidentiality was maintained.

• The practice followed the relevant guidance from the Department of Health's: ‘Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05) for infection control with regard to cleaning and sterilizing dental instruments.

• The practice had the necessary equipment for staff to deal with medical emergencies, and staff had been trained how to use that equipment. This included an automated external defibrillator, oxygen and emergency medicines.

Inspection carried out on 13 August 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At this inspection we spoke with the manager and a representative of the provider. We carried out this inspection to follow up on concerns raised at our last inspection where we found patients were not always protected by robust recruitment practices.

We found that the provider had taken steps to address the concerns raised. An audit of staff information had been undertaken, information had been put in place and all staff had undertaken a criminal records check via the Disclosure and Barring Service.

We spoke with one patient while we were inspecting the practice. Their comments did not directly relate to the outcome we were inspecting. However they spoke positively about the positive experiences they have had over many years using the practice.

Inspection carried out on 2 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with patients in the waiting area of the practice and observed three consultations. All of the patients we spoke with were positive about their experience of using this dental surgery. They told us that they always found the surgery to be "Clean and tidy." They said that staff were accommodating and that they were able to see a dentist when they needed to.

Patients told us that they felt fully involved in making decisions about their treatment and said that their dentist had given them sufficient information about the treatment options available so that they could make an informed choice about their oral health.

Patients reported that they had never had cause to complain. They told us that they were confident that if something was not right, that they could raise it and it would be dealt with appropriately.

We found that the practice maintained records about the treatment provided which included up to date medical histories. Detailed letters were sent to patients where treatments were complex or prolonged. There was evidence that dentists ensured that they got informed consent from patients before they started any treatment. The practice had appropriate systems in place to manage medical emergencies. We saw evidence that equipment was routinely serviced and maintained.

We identified shortfalls in the way staff had been recruited. In particular, the practice had not gathered sufficient information about the people it employed to ensure they were suitable to work with children and vulnerable adults.