You are here

Archived: 6 Russell Gardens

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 September 2013
Date of Publication: 26 October 2013
Inspection Report published 26 October 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 26 September 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider.

We also looked at recent satisfaction survey results.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service were given information and support regarding their care or treatment. The provider had a website which provided information about the costs and benefits of the different dental conditions and procedures on offer. During consultation, the principal dentist discussed the risks and benefits of treatment with people and we saw this was recorded in their treatment records. The provider informed us that written treatment plans were offered to people. One person told us the principal dentist explained everything ''so nicely'', ''he made me feel at ease'' and said that things were explained each time they came in. When they first started using the service this person told us they were asked to provide details of their medical history. They said they were able to ask all the questions they wanted and were given written aftercare instructions.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected. People were treated in private. Where English was not the person’s first language, they would bring someone to their appointment to translate for them. However, the principal dentist was unaware of how to access interpreting services for people using the service if required.