You are here

The Dental and Cosmetic Clinic


Inspection carried out on 16 November 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 16 November 2015 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.


The Dental and Cosmetic Clinic is located in the suburbs of Leicester in South Wigston. It is outside the city boundary, forming part of the Oadby and Wigston district of Leicestershire. There are good public transport links within the area and a railway station a short walk away from the clinic. The clinic has ample car parking to the rear of the premises for its patients to use.

The practice provides only private dental services and treats both adults and children. The practice serves a population of approximately 3,000. This includes around 50 children.

There are eight members of staff working within the practice team. This consisted of one dentist, four dental nurses and two dental hygienists. In addition the clinic has a practice manager who is also qualified as a dental nurse. There is a receptionist employed who is supported by the practice manager and one of the dental nurses when the reception desk requires manning.

The practice opening hours are Monday to Friday 9.00am to 5.30pm.

We received feedback from 41 patients. All feedback included extremely positive comments about the practice and the majority made particular reference to the staff. Comments supported that the practice was able to meet the needs of nervous patients and those with special needs including physical and learning difficulties. One person commented that it was the best service a patient could ever have. Remarks were also made regarding the cleanliness of the practice. We did not receive any negative comments about the practice.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice had a system for recording and analysing significant events and complaints and sharing learning with staff.
  • Staff had received safeguarding and whistle blowing training and knew the procedures to follow to raise any concerns.
  • There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet patients’ needs.
  • All but one member of staff we spoke with had been trained to handle emergencies and we found that most of the appropriate equipment and medicines were readily available. However, we found that the practice did not have an AED (defibrillator) in place. An AED is a portable electronic device that analyses life threatening irregularities of the heart and delivers an electrical shock to attempt to restore a normal heart rhythm. When this was raised with the practice manager, they made a decision to purchase an AED there and then. We were provided with assurance following our inspection that the defibrillator had arrived at the practice and was ready for use.
  • Robust infection control procedures were in place and the practice followed national guidance.
  • Patients’ care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with evidence based guidelines, best practice and current legislation.
  • Patients received clear and detailed explanations about their proposed treatment, costs, options and risks. Patients were therefore able to make informed decisions about their choice in treatments.
  • We observed that patients were treated with dignity and respect and confidentiality was maintained.
  • The appointment system met patients’ needs whether they wanted to be seen urgently or for more routine appointments.
  • The practice was well-led and staff worked as a team. There was an open culture in place whereby staff felt able to raise any issues or concerns.
  • Governance systems were effective and there was a range of clinical and non-clinical audits to monitor the quality of services.

Inspection carried out on 22 August 2012

During a routine inspection

The people who used the service told us they were satisfied with the quality of service they received. People said they were asked about their medical history on thier initial visit and about any dental problems they may have.

People told us treatment options were explained and they made the decision as to the treatment that best suited them. People were able to get appointments quickly and at the time that suited them.

One person said," I would recommend this practice to anyone and have done".

Another person commented, "I was referred to this dentist for implant surgery, I would say that the treatment and patient care is second to none".