Brixham Dental Practice Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found this practice was providing well-led 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 Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The practice had a governance system that included policies and procedures, which were accessible to staff and were reviewed on a regular basis.

Systems and processes were embedded, and the inspection did not highlight significant issues or omissions. Areas requiring improvement were acted on immediately.

Staff were aware of the importance of protecting patients’ personal information. Staff password protected patients’ electronic care records.

Concerns and complaints were responded to appropriately, and outcomes were discussed to share learning and for improvement.

We noted innovative approaches to providing person centred care. For example, the practice work with a local charity to provide access to care for the fishing community in Brixham, and work with local schools to provide oral health education to pupils.

Patients had commented that the lights in the surgeries can be too bright. The practice provided flexibility to allow these patients to been seen in an alternative room where treatment can be safely provided without the use of the overhead lights.

Staff had clear responsibilities, and systems of accountability to support good governance.

Staff feedback was obtained through meetings, surveys, and informal discussions. Staff were encouraged to offer suggestions for improvements to the service, and they said these were listened to and acted upon, where appropriate.

For example, the practice introduced separate meetings for clinical and non-clinical staff to support more focused discussions. They had also implemented an online booking system and had applied for dental awards, reflecting the team's commitment to delivering high-quality care and their pride in the service provided.

Staff commented they were proud to work at the practice, and they feel the practice owner and manager genuinely care about providing the best care possible for patients.

There were processes for identifying and managing risks, investigating incidents and accidents, and for receiving and acting on safety alerts, however, these were not always effective. For example, the sharps risk assessment did not reflect current practice, and the legionella risk assessment had not been actioned fully.

The practice had systems and processes for learning, quality assurance and continuous improvement. This included undertaking audits according to recognised guidance. However, audit findings were not always effectively reviewed or acted upon.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.