You are here

Archived: The Dental Surgery

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 August 2013
Date of Publication: 10 September 2013
Inspection Report published 10 September 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 6 August 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider.

We also reviewed recent survey satisfaction results from people who use the service.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. The provider’s website published information for example, on how they could be contacted, the treatments offered and the cost of fees for consultations and treatments. One person we spoke with who used the service and recent survey results demonstrated that people were satisfied with the information the practice provided to them. One person told us they were given information on the costs, risks and benefits of treatment upfront and instructions before and following treatment. They felt they had had enough time to discuss their issues during appointments.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected. People who use the service were treated in private. People could bring a chaperone with them to an appointment if they wished and we were informed that people had done so in the past. Where English was not a person’s first language they usually brought their own interpreter to appointments. Staff told us they could offer interpretor services if required.

The provider carried out satisfaction surveys in 2013. All 20 respondents expressed high levels of satisfaction with the practice. They said they had been given sufficient advice and information about their condition and treatment.

People who required wheelchair access could gain entry to the building with assistance from staff. However there was no ramp available. This has been identified as an action and the practice were looking into how they could improve the access for people with mobility difficulties.