Archived: Parkstone

Following the inspection the provider wrote to us and told us the actions they would take to ensure the service attained compliance. At a further inspection in February 2014 we found the provider had not made improvements to check and monitor the quality of their service and ensure appropriate systems were in place to identify, assess and manage risks. As this was a continuing breach of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 we issued a warning notice.

On 21 May 2014 we carried out an inspection to follow up on the actions the provider had taken as a result of the warning notice. We found the provider had ensured that they were monitoring the quality of their service and that appropriate systems were in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and staff.

At the inspection however, we identified additional areas of concern because the service did not have appropriate medicines in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies, and had not tested a piece of equipment to ensure it was safe. The provider wrote to us following the inspection and told about the action they had taken to ensure equipment was tested and that people could be safely supported in the event of a medical emergency.

We spoke with two people who was using the services of Parkstone during our inspection visit on 28 February 2014. This was in order to hear about their experiences. We also observed one person while they were in a treatment room with one of the dentists who worked at the practice.

People told us they were treated politely and confidentially and that staff were discreet and ensured that information about them was treated sensitively in the reception area. People said when they were having checks ups and treatment that their dentists explained what they were doing and why. They told us they were given advice about dental care and hygiene. They also said that when treatment was required they were given a plan that set out what treatment was required and its cost.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We found that people were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate practice and guidance had been followed.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider did not have effective systems to check and monitor the quality of their service. Appropriate systems were not in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

People's privacy and dignity were respected. Their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was delivered to them. They said that staff were always respectful. For example, one person described them as 'polite, helpful'.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs. Treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure their safety and welfare. People were complimentary about their care.

Arrangements to deal with medical emergencies were insufficient.

The provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening. At the time of our inspection there was no policy for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. Some staff had not had relevant training.

People were cared for in a clean environment. However, they were not adequately protected from the risk of infection because the practice did not have all the required instrument cleaning equipment. The provider could not locate current servicing and validation certificates for decontamination equipment.

Staff received appropriate professional development.

The provider did not have effective systems to check and monitor service quality. They did not have effective systems to assess and manage risks to health, safety and welfare.