The Leicester Street Practice Also known as The Gallery Dental Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

Staff had carried out a disability access audit and had an action plan to continually improve access for patients.

Staff described the reasonable adjustments they had made to ensure the practice was accessible. The practice had access to large print and alternative formats of information to support patients with impaired vision. Also available to support patients with impaired vision was an electronic tablet for completion of medical history or consent forms; information on the electronic tablets could be enlarged if required. The practice had a hearing induction loop to support patients with a hearing impairment. The practice was wheelchair accessible with step-free access and ground floor treatment rooms. Staff had access to language translation services and information was available in other languages if required.

Staff were clear about the importance of providing emotional support to patients when delivering care. For example, staff said that they talked to patients to distract them and to make them feel relaxed. We were told that staff reassured patients. Patients who were extremely anxious could chat to staff in a private room where staff would try and calm their nerves. If requested to do so, nurses would hold a patient’s hand whilst they were having treatment. Patients were able to take a family member or friend into the dental surgery with them. Music was playing in the waiting room which could also distract anxious patients.

The practice supported more vulnerable members of society, for example, patients living with dementia or adults and children with a learning disability. Staff had completed training regarding autism and learning disabilities. Notes were made on patient records to remind staff if a patient required additional support.

The practice displayed its opening hours and provided information on their website and patient information leaflet.

The frequency of appointments was agreed between the dentist and the patient, giving due regard to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

The practice provided telephone numbers for patients needing emergency dental treatment during the working day and when the practice was not open.

At the time of our inspection, patients who needed an urgent appointment were offered one in a timely manner. When the practice was unable to offer an urgent appointment, they worked with partner organisations to support urgent access for patients.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.