• Dentist
  • Dentist

Mr Aun Ki Fang

113A Ballards Lane, Finchley, London, N3 1XY (020) 8346 0983

Provided and run by:
Mr. Aun Ki Fang

All Inspections

8 September 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook a follow up focused inspection of Mr Aun Ki Fang on 8 September 2022. This inspection was carried out to review in detail the actions taken by the registered provider to improve the quality of care and to confirm that the practice was now meeting legal requirements.

The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who had access to a specialist dental adviser.

We undertook a focused inspection of Mr Aun Ki Fang on 27 May 2022 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We found the registered provider was not providing safe and well led care and was in breach of regulations 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can read our report of that inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Mr Aun Ki Fang dental practice on our website www.cqc.org.uk.

When one or more of the five questions are not met we require the service to make improvements and send us an action plan. We then inspect again after a reasonable interval, focusing on the areas where improvement was required.

As part of this inspection we asked:

• Is it safe?

• Is it well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

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

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 27 May 2022.

Are services well-led?

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

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspection on 27 May 2022.

Background

Mr Aun Ki Fang is a dental practice in Finchley, in the London Borough of Barnet, and provides NHS and private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

The practice is located close to public transport links and car parking spaces are available nearby.

The dental team includes 1 principal dentist, 1 associate dentist, 2 dental nurses, 1 dental hygienist, and 1 receptionist. The dental team is supported by a practice manager. The practice has two treatment rooms.

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

The practice is open:

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 8.30am to 5.30pm

Thursday and Saturday from 8.30am to 5pm.

27 May 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this announced focused inspection on 27 May 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 usually ask five key questions, however due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and to reduce time spent on site, only the following three questions were asked:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• 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.
  • Safeguarding processes were in place and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Staff provided preventive care and supported patients to ensure better oral health.
  • There was effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement.
  • The practice had staff recruitment procedures which reflected current legislation.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked as a team.
  • Staff and patients were asked for feedback about the services provided.
  • The dental clinic had information governance arrangements.
  • There were systems in place to ensure the dental equipment was serviced regularly. However, improvements were needed to ensure that the premises were safe.
  • Risks to staff and patients from undertaking of regulated activities had not been suitably identified and mitigated.
  • There were ineffective systems to ensure that staff were up to date with their recommended training as set out by the General Dental Council.

Background

Mr Aun Ki Fang is in Finchley, in the London Borough of Barnet, and provides NHS and private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

The practice is located close to public transport links and car parking spaces are available nearby.

The dental team includes one principal dentist, one associate dentist, two dental nurses, one dental hygienist, and one receptionist. The dental team is supported by a practice manager. The practice has two treatment rooms.

During the inspection we spoke with the principal dentist, one 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, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday 8.30am to 5.30pm

Thursday and Saturday 8.30am to 5pm

We identified regulations the provider was not complying with. They must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

Full details of the regulations the provider was not meeting are at the end of this report.

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

Implement audits for prescribing of antibiotic medicines taking into account the guidance provided by the College of General Dentistry (CGDent).

11 November 2013

During a routine inspection

At the last inspection on 19 July 2013, we identified that infection control practices were not effective. The manual cleaning of instruments was cursory and infection control procedures had not been audited. Some tests specified by the Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05) on equipment used for decontamination were not carried out. The practice did not have systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Plans to identify a separate decontamination room had not been established. The last patient survey had been undertaken in 2008.

At this inspection, we found that the provider had made improvements. Decontamination and sterilisation procedures were undertaken in line with the provider's policy. The practice manager had carried out detailed audits of infection control and record keeping. They demonstrated to us how changes had been made to improve practice. Satisfaction surveys had been undertaken and analysed, and related feedback was discussed in a staff meeting to implement changes required.

19 July 2013

During a routine inspection

Patients we spoke with were complimentary about the service. One said 'the dentist has a very nice manner." Medical histories were regularly taken to identify and minimise any potential risks to patients. One patient said the dentist was 'scrupulous' in this regard.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Drugs and equipment recommended by the Resuscitation Council UK (RCUK) were almost all in place and staff regularly undertook basic life support training.

Whilst the practice had systems to reduce the risk and spread of infection, we found some areas of concern. The premises did not allow for a separate decontamination room, regarded as best practice. The manual cleaning of instruments was cursory and this procedure had not been audited, which was contrary to Department of Health essential requirements which said this should be carried out every six months. Some tests specified by the Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 on equipment used for decontamination were not carried out.

The practice did not have systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. This included gathering patients' views. Whilst patients we spoke with on the day of the inspection told us they were happy with the service, the last patient survey had been undertaken in 2008. A lack of a systematic approach to quality monitoring meant that people could not be sure of the effectiveness of the provider's infection control procedures and other quality measures.