You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 October 2013
Date of Publication: 1 November 2013
Inspection Report published 01 November 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 2 October 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare

Reasons for our judgement

The practice provided all treatments on a privately funded basis. Some people used a financial payment plan whilst others paid for each course of treatment. Services were provided free of charge for children under the age of six years.

There was a hygienist service. The hygienist only received people for treatment if they were referred to them by the dentist. If people needed orthodontic (tooth alignment) treatment they were referred to a specialist in that field. People were also referred to a cosmetic dentist for dental implants.

The reception and waiting area were welcoming with low volume radio playing in the background. There were a range of newspapers and magazines to occupy people while they waited for their appointment. Books and toys were available for children.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at a random sample of five people’s records. They each showed that personal details were recorded along with a record of the person’s medical history that was checked prior to commencing treatment. The records showed a chart of dental treatments that had been carried out, historically, and there were records made of each appointment. There were records of basic periodontal examinations (BPE) and assessment of ‘caries risk’ (dental decay). We saw that when x-rays had been taken they were dated and kept within the records. We noted that people were asked to update their medical history as they arrived for their appointment.

We saw the policy for the management of medical emergencies. There was a supply of oxygen and medicines were available. However, the service did not have all of the medicines as recommended by the Resuscitation Council. The provider may wish to note that by following these recommendations the practice would be in a better position to respond to more emergencies. Whilst there was no external defibrillator in the practice, staff knew that one could be located at the nearby GP surgery or fire station. Staff received training in dealing with unforeseen medical emergencies.

Digital x-rays were taken as required. If people needed an OPG (panoramic x-ray of the whole dental area) they were referred to another provider. There was a file that held information about radiation protection. It recorded details of the external advisor and showed that the dentist was the radiation protection supervisor for the practice. There were ‘working procedures’ to be followed and description of the controlled area for the taking of x-rays. A personnel register listed those staff who could assist with the taking of x-rays and listed their responsibilities. We noted that there was an identified contractor for servicing of the equipment and maintenance. The record showed there had been a six monthly routine visual check of the equipment in July 2013.