You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 December 2013
Date of Publication: 3 January 2014
Inspection Report published 03 January 2014 PDF

Before people are given any examination, care, treatment or support, they should be asked if they agree to it (outcome 2)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Where they are able, give valid consent to the examination, care, treatment and support they receive.
  • Understand and know how to change any decisions about examination, care, treatment and support that has been previously agreed.
  • Can be confident that their human rights are respected and taken into account.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 4 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Reasons for our judgement

We saw that staff interacted with people well when they attended appointments or were on the telephone, and this was done in a respectful and professional manner.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We saw that the service and the treatment room were accessible for people who used equipment, such as a wheelchair to support their mobility needs.

We saw that people's records were securely stored in the service which showed that their right to confidentiality was maintained.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We heard that staff provided people with clear explanations of their treatment options and they acted on their decisions. This was confirmed by one person who used the service.

We saw the treatment records of six people who used the service. These records showed that where treatment had been advised, the dentist had given them written information about the options available and the costs for this treatment. This meant that people were provided with the information they needed to make decisions about their treatment.

People told us that they were kept informed about the costs of their treatment. We saw that there were leaflets that people could help themselves to in the reception area which identified the costs for treatment. The costs were also available on the service's web site. One person who used the service told us that they were informed of the costs of their treatment. This was confirmed when we observed signed consent forms in the notes we reviewed.