You are here

Archived: Severn Valley Dental Implant Centre

Reports


Inspection carried out on 19 August 2014

During a routine inspection

The purpose of this inspection was to find out answers to five key questions. Is the practice safe? Is the practice effective? Is the practice caring? Is the practice responsive? And Is the practice well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection when we sought information about people’s experiences and gained views from people, the staff who supported them and from looking at records.

Is the practice safe?

The practice had systems in place to ensure people were kept safe. The systems included dedicated arrangements for decontamination of dental instruments, maintenance of equipment and cleanliness of the premises. Recruitment procedures ensured staff were suitable to work in the practice. Arrangements were in place for staff cover due to sickness absence.

Is the practice effective?

The practice accepted referrals from other providers for dental implants. People we spoke with were happy with the care and treatment they received. They told us they found the practice to be clean.

Is the practice caring?

People were selected for treatment following an initial consultation. This considered the person’s reason for wanting a dental implant, any concerns they had about treatment and their expected outcomes. The consultation included a discussion about the person’s oral and gum health, lifestyle and any aftercare they may need after final fitting of an implant.

Is the practice responsive?

The practice ensured people had all the information they needed to enable them to make an informed choice and consent to treatment. Where equipment was found to be faulty arrangements were made for it to be repaired or replaced. The practice had an effective complaints system.

Is the practice well-led?

Staff received appropriate support from the clinical lead and area manager. The management of the practice ensured people’s safety and welfare.

Inspection carried out on 1 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people when we visited the implant centre. They each had chosen to have the treatment or find out about treatment and said that they were involved in making decisions about treatment plans. They were given explanations about options available and were informed of the costs involved.

People were given sufficient written information when treatment plans were agreed. This included consent for treatment an outline of the risks associated with the treatment and the measures taken to minimise those risks, and after care instructions.

We saw good standards of cleanliness and staff followed appropriate infection control procedures. Staff training was supported. There were some measures in place to ensure that people’s views and opinions were sought but this feedback was not currently being captured and fed into the ongoing business arrangements. The manager was in the process of developing a questionnaire for this purpose.