You are here

Archived: Michael Shipway & Associates

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 January 2014
Date of Publication: 23 January 2014
Inspection Report published 23 January 2014 PDF | 71.41 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 7 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

Patients experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Assessments had been completed before patients were offered treatment options.

Reasons for our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We looked at four paper treatment records with two dentists and referral letters for specialist treatment for three other patients. The records told us that a dental assessment had been completed and all treatment provided had been recorded. At each visit a separate record outlining the treatment to be provided was signed by the patient as a consent to the treatment. When treatment options had been discussed patients received a letter outlining the options and the costs before a decision was made. Patients told us that they had completed a medical history record to include their medication. At every appointment a patient's medical history was updated and medical alerts were recorded on the cover of the paper record when required. This meant that patients were protected from unsafe practice when their complete medical history was known.

The dentists also checked soft tissue and gum health and recorded the results. Recall risk assessments were recorded as all dentists completed scale and polish procedures and patients had been advised when to return. The provider may find it useful to note that not all gum health assessments had been recorded which meant that there was insufficient information to assess any improvement or decline. The clinical records included x-rays taken when required. Patients we spoke to told us, "wonderful dentist who also visited my husband at home", "excellent treatment, organised, planned and well catered or here" and "marvellous, best dentist I have ever been too".

We looked at several letters where patients had been referred for specialist treatment. They included treatment at a hospital by a maxillo-facial surgeon to remove wisdom teeth and to a specialist for root canal treatment. Referrals made to other dental professionals helped to ensure that patients received the best possible treatment.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The practice telephone message informed patients about how to access urgent out of hours treatment. The emergency drugs and oxygen were in date and safely stored. The provider may find it useful to note that regular checks on the emergency medication had not been completed and recorded to ensure that they were ready for use. The practice manager told us that all staff had completed life support training annually. The provider may find it useful to note that the guidance from the General Dental Council and Resuscitation Council (UK) had recently advised that a defibrillator must be part of the minimum equipment for resuscitation.