You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 December 2013
Date of Publication: 21 January 2014
Inspection Report published 21 January 2014 PDF | 91.15 KB

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 13 December 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

The practice opened from 9 – 2pm Monday to Friday. This meant that working people could come in their lunch break. Appointments were made for school children in the late afternoons by arrangement in term time. Information about the NHS Out of Hours service was available and an arrangement had been made with a local practice for emergency support for patients when this practice was closed for a holiday.

The public areas of the practice were all on the ground floor. There was free parking in the streets around the practice. There was a small step at the front entrance and a corner to turn to enter the hallway. Staff told us that independent wheelchair users had been able to come in this way. There was a toilet available for people. It had plenty of room, a low hand basin, a strong grab rail on one side. Staff said they had never had to turn anyone away due to a disability. We were given an example of a blind person who had attended with their dog. The practice had made some adaptations to help people with mobility problems. These could benefit from further improvement. They had not yet commissioned an assessment to receive guidance on the best way to make the premises suitable for people with disabilities.

We found the waiting room was warm and comfortable with upright chairs, some with arms. These made it easier for people with mobility problems to stand unaided.

Staff told us that people who were hard of hearing but not profoundly deaf had attended. It had not been necessary to obtain support with language as all who had attended were English speakers.

People told us they had been involved in decisions that were made about their treatment. One person told us that the dentist “talks to you all the time, talking you through what she is doing and what is needed”. We saw the practice’s policy on clinical decision-making. It said that “Treatment terms are discussed with the patient and agreed.” The dentist told us that she had discussed with a patient what to do about their painful tooth. A bitewing X-ray had shown no decay. She explained that if a tooth had a slight crack it may flex and cause pain where there was no decay. There was no record of this discussion, but the dentist said this was because no treatment was provided. Another person’s record showed that they had been given a root filling. The cost was entered. Verbal or implied consent had not been recorded.