You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 December 2012
Date of Publication: 15 February 2013
Inspection Report published 15 February 2013 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

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 7 December 2012, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider is compliant with Outcome 01: Respecting and involving people who use services. People who use the service were treated respectfully and fully consulted about their treatment plans.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service told us they had a very positive experience and would recommend the practice to their family and friends. They said they received information about treatment options that enabled them to make informed decisions and all costs were explained to them before treatment. We saw copies of letters to patients detailing their treatment options and costs. Evidence of written treatment plans detailing the treatment proposed, expected costs and options was seen.

The service has a website which provided prospective patients with information on what to expect at their first appointment. The website also provided information about the services available and team members.

The practice had an appointment system that allowed sufficient time for people to discuss their needs and options with the dentist. Patients were given detailed verbal information and had access to written literature about treatment available to them at the initial consultation. The verbal information included any risks involved with the treatment chosen and enabled them to be involved in the treatment decision-making procedure. Patients had a further opportunity to discuss proposed treatments and costs with the practice manager who is a trained dental nurse.

Evidence of patients' guides on different treatments was seen which allows patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. People we spoke to were satisfied with information about their treatment provided to them and were aware of the options and fees involved. Patients reported they had 'time to ask questions'.

We saw from written patient feedback that overall people were very satisfied with the service.

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect. People were greeted on arrival. Consultations and treatments were carried out in private rooms. Patients said that their privacy and dignity were respected by the dentist. Staff wore name badges which clearly identified their name and role. People we talked to reported that 'staff were very friendly and made them feel welcome'.

A number of different languages were spoken by the staff which allowed them to communicate with patients who spoke limited English. Interpreters were also used if required. We saw evidence of an interactive electronic medical and dental assessment form which were available in multi-lingual form.

The practice had not recieved any formal written complaints. The practice manager contacted each patient by telephone after treatment to ensure that they were not having any problems.