You are here

Archived: Broadway Dental

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 April 2013
Date of Publication: 18 May 2013
Inspection Report published 18 May 2013 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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 24 April 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

People we spoke with were happy with the care and treatment they had received. They told us if they were not happy they would find a different dentist. We had not received any complaints about the practice. We saw that a small number of complaints had been received which had been dealt with appropriately.

We looked at recently completed questionnaires which generally confirmed people’s satisfaction with the service. We saw evidence to confirm that the registered provider had taken notice of the comments that people had made. For example, one person had suggested that a television be available in the waiting room. The registered provider told us that they were in the process of installing a television system. They told us that this would give educational information about dentistry and general advice. This meant that people would have something to watch whilst waiting for their appointment which would give advice about promoting good oral hygiene and information about treatments.

We found that the registered provider had looked at ways in which they could provide a better service. Recently the practice had employed a part time hygienist who provided oral hygiene care and advice. This meant that people using this practice could have dedicated time with this staff member to learn about ways they could promote better oral hygiene to prevent oral disease and tooth decay.

We saw that the registered provider’s public liability insurance was in date. Safety certificates were available for the equipment used for people’s care, such as the x-ray machines and autoclave. This meant that the provider had taken action to make sure that equipment used to treat people was tested to ensure that it was safe to use. It also meant that people could be assured that insurance had been purchased in case something went wrong.

The registered provider may wish to note that although we saw that some audits had been undertaken to an appropriate standard we were told that the ‘spot’ checking of staff work was not undertaken regularly. In one surgery room we found four preparations that were out of date. Although these preparations were not used for clinical or surgical purposes they should not have been there. Thorough checking processes would have identified this issue and eradicated any risk that this may have posed. The manager told us that they would recommence the spot checking of surgery rooms to prevent the situation happening again.