Archived: Pol-Dent Private Dental Practice

On the day of our inspection only the dental practice was open to people. We spoke with four people who were visiting the dental practice. They were generally satisfied with the service they received. One person told us, 'After the treatment the dentist gave me a written report of the treatment I'd had and the on-going treatment I'd need.' Another person told us, 'I am satisfied with the service.'

We saw that there had been improvements to the service in relation to consent to treatment, care and welfare of people, the suitability of the premises and the quality monitoring of the service. However, further work is still needed to achieve and maintain compliance with the regulations so that people are provided with a safe and effective service.

We found that people were still at risk from unsafe premises. The provider had not put in place suitable arrangements to protect people from the risk of fire. The premises did not support good infection control and provide adequate privacy for people who used the service.

The provider did not have effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others were inadequate and placed people at risk.

During our visit we met and spoke with the manager and a dental nurse from the practice. The manager had recently applied to CQC to become the registered manager.

Although we had expected to meet people who used the service and dental / other medical staff on the day of our visit none were available. Following our visit the interpreter contacted, on our behalf, eight people who used the dental service to ask them about their experiences of the service. The people we spoke with told us that they were satisfied with the service they received. Comments included: 'It's okay' and 'Overall, I am satisfied.'

We found that people were not always given the information needed to make informed choices about the dental treatment they received. This included information about different treatment options and information about costs.

We were not assured that people's dental health needs were fully met. This was because people did not have a treatment plan for their dental needs and there was no evidence that treatment had been based on a full mouth assessment.

We were concerned that the premises were not suitable. The provider did not undertake the necessary checks to ensure people's safety when using the service, such as fire and electrical checks. People's privacy and comfort was also not ensured.

There was a lack of systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and failed to ensure that people received a good service.