Norwich Street Dental Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged.

Staff kept up-to-date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

We looked at a sample of patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was generally in line with recognised guidance. The practice should take action to ensure the clinician adopts an individual risk-based approach to patient recalls taking into account the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We saw evidence the dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, there was no consent policy and limited knowledge regarding Gillick competency. (Gillick competence is a legal principle that allows children under 16 to consent to their own medical treatment if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to appreciate the nature and consequences of the treatment.)

The practice had some systems for prescribing medicines, but this prescribing was not always in line with current guidance. Whilst prescription pads were kept securely, the system in place would not identify if a prescription had gone missing. Staff did not carry out antimicrobial prescribing audits. Following this feedback, we saw this was completed, yet this did not fulfil the purpose of the audit.

Patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national faster diagnosis pathways.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.