• Dentist
  • Dentist

Oatlands Dental Lounge

Alfred House, 127A Oatlands Drive, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 9LB (01932) 858686

Provided and run by:
Oatlands Dental Lounge

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

6 December 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this announced inspection on 6 December 2021 under section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a Care Quality Commission, (CQC), inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following three questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Oatlands Dental Lounge is in Weybridge and provides private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

There no level access to the practice for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. Car parking spaces, including dedicated parking for people with disabilities, are available near the practice.

The dental team includes three dentists, a dental nurse, two trainee dental nurses, a dental hygienist, a receptionist and a practice manager. The practice has four treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by a partnership and as a condition of registration must have a person registered with the CQC as the registered manager. Registered managers have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run. The registered manager at Oatlands Dental Lounge is the principal dentist.

During the inspection we spoke with two dentists, a dental nurse, a receptionist and the practice manager. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

  • Monday 8am to 6pm
  • Tuesday 8am to 6pm
  • Wednesday 8am to 6pm
  • Thursday 8am to 6pm
  • Friday 8am to 5pm
  • Saturdays by appointment

Our key findings were:

  • The practice appeared to be visibly clean and mostly well-maintained. The mains wiring safety certificate had expired.
  • The provider had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The provider mostly had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff. The fire risk assessment required review to include laser operations and sedated patients.
  • The provider had safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The provider had staff recruitment procedures which reflected current legislation.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • One item of X-ray equipment required a three yearly quality assurance.
  • Staff provided preventive care and supported patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
  • The provider had effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement, except there was no implant audit, reviewing success, or failure of the procedure.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked as a team.
  • The provider asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The provider dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
  • The provider had information governance arrangements.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

  • Take action to implement any recommendations in the practice's fire safety risk assessment and ensure ongoing fire safety management is effective in relation to laser operation and sedated patients.

  • Take action to ensure audits of implants reviewing the success, and failure, are undertaken at regular intervals to improve the quality of the service. Practice should also ensure that, where appropriate, audits have documented learning points and the resulting improvements can be demonstrated.

  • Take action to ensure the suitability of the premises and ensure all areas are fit for the purpose for which they are being used, in particular the mains wiring safety certificate.

  • Improve the practice's protocols and procedures for the use of X-ray equipment in compliance with The Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 and Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017 and taking into account the guidance for Dental Practitioners on the Safe Use of X-ray Equipment in particular carrying out the three yearly quality assurance examination for X-ray equipment.

26 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was a follow up inspection that related to recruitment of staff.

We found that the provider was obtaining all the necessary information that related to staff recruitment in order to assure themselves that only suitable people worked at the practice.

21 October 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with three patients, two members of staff, the registered manager and the provider. We also reviewed eleven patient records.

The patients we spoke with were very happy with the service. One patient told us they had “Total confidence” in the dentist. We were told that no treatment was carried out without the consent of the patient.

We saw evidence that staff were trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and children and had information on who to contact if they had any concerns.

We found that the practice had the necessary arrangements in place which ensured that equipment was suitable and safe for the patients who used the service.

We found that although the practice had a recruitment policy, this was not always followed. We found there were some gaps in the information required for staff.

None of the patients that we spoke with had felt the need to complain. However they all said they could approach the staff if they had any complaints.

13 March 2012

During a routine inspection

The people who spoke with us said that they had been using the practice for a number of years and were very satisfied with the treatment and care provided. Staff were said to be knowledgeable and experienced, taking care to provide information and advice on an individual basis.

We were told that staff were professional and always treated them with dignity and respect, taking into account personal preferences.