• Dentist
  • Dentist

Richmond House Dental Surgery

112 Richmond Road, Compton, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 9JJ (01902) 712089

Provided and run by:
Mr. Terence Knowles

All Inspections

1 November 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced comprehensive inspection on 1 November 2022 under section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered practice was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a Care Quality Commission, (CQC), inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

Our findings were:

  • The dental clinic was visibly clean and well-maintained.
  • The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with medical emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff.
  • Safeguarding processes were in place and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The practice had staff recruitment procedures which reflected current legislation.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines. However, they did not use a rectangular collimator when taking intra oral radiographs
  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect and staff took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • Staff provided preventive care and supported patients to ensure better oral health. However, the dentist did not use rubber dam in line with the guidelines issued by the British Endodontic Society for the use of rubber dam for root canal treatment. They were unaware of the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases.
  • The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
  • There was effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked as a team.
  • Staff and patients were asked for feedback about the services provided.
  • Complaints were dealt with positively and efficiently.
  • The dental clinic had information governance arrangements.

Background

Richmond House Dental Surgery is in Wolverhampton is and provides private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

There is level access to the practice for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. Car parking spaces, including dedicated parking for disabled people, are available near the practice. The practice has made reasonable adjustments to support patients with additional needs.

The dental team includes 1 dentist, 3 dental nurses, 2 dental hygienists, 1 receptionist and a practice manager. The practice has 1 treatment room.

During the inspection we spoke with 1 dentist, 1 dental nurse and the practice manager. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday to Thursday from 9am to 12.30pm and from 2pm to 5.30pm.

Friday from 9am to 3.30pm.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

  • Take action to ensure dentists are aware of the guidelines issued by the British Endodontic Society for the use of rubber dam for root canal treatment.
  • Ensure staff are aware of the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases.
  • Staff should use a rectangular collimator when taking intra oral radiographs.

9 April 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found at our last inspection visit to Richmond House Dental Surgery in 2013 that improvements were required regarding the complaints system in place. The provider sent us an action plan following our visit which recorded the action taken to address the issue raised.

We conducted this inspection to check and see if people who used this dental surgery had been made aware of how to make a complaint. We saw that information was available suggesting that people who had concerns or complaints speak with a member of the practice staff. We saw that a detailed complaints procedure was available and complaint log sheets were used to record details of any complaint received. We saw that one complaint had been received since our last inspection visit. Details of this complaint were logged and action taken to address issues raised were recorded.

We spoke with two people who used the services of this dental surgery. These people said that they would speak with staff if they had any concerns. One person said that they would ask for a copy of the complaint procedure. Both people were extremely happy with the service that they received and had not had cause to complain.

7 March 2013

During a routine inspection

This dental practice is located on the ground floor and was accessible to people who have restricted mobility. The premises consisted of three treatment rooms, a waiting area, toilet and a decontamination room.

The staff team consisted of two dentists, three hygienists and four dental nurses and a practice manager. All the staff were registered with the General Dental Council.

We found that people were provided with information about their treatment options and consent was obtained before treatment commenced.

Records were maintained of people's treatment and when it was necessary for a revisit. The cost for treatment was displayed in the waiting room.

We found that the process for the decontamination of instruments used for treatment was satisfactory but some instruments were worn and unsuitable for use.

We found that the management of medicines was satisfactory.

The practice's staff recruitment processes were appropriate to ensure the suitability of staff who worked there. One person who used the service said, "The staff team are excellent."

The staff we spoke with confirmed they had access to regular training to ensure they had the necessary skills and competence to undertake their role.

The practice did not have an effective system in place for identifying, receiving, handling and responding to complaints. One person who used the service said, "I'm unaware of the practice's complaint procedure."