You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 January 2013
Date of Publication: 14 May 2013
Inspection Report published 14 May 2013 PDF

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 23 January 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

The care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured patients' safety and welfare. We saw by examining patient records that a written medical history was obtained prior to the commencement of dental treatment in all cases and scanned into the computer records. This meant that the staff were always aware of any risks to patients and would ensure that they were safe during a consultation.

Patient’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at three treatment records. The records contained details of the condition of the gums and soft tissues lining the mouth. These were carried out at each dental health assessment. This meant that the patient was made aware of changes in their oral condition. The patients dental recall interval was determined by the dentist using a risk based approach based on current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The recall interval was set following discussion of these risks with the patient. This meant that people’s care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance.

The dentists told us that they followed national guidelines in relation to the assessment of third molars and antibiotic treatment. This was supported by discussions with the dentists when reviewing patient records. This provided further evidence that people’s care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance.

One dentist we spoke to was aware of the Mental Capacity Act and explained how they would manage a patient who lacked the capacity to consent to dental treatment. This meant where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. This ensured that vulnerable people are treated with dignity and respect.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We were told that staff undergo yearly team training in dealing with medical emergencies in the dental chair. This was facilitated by a suitably qualified person from a training organisation. The practice manager showed us staff training certificates to verify this training had taken place. There was a range of suitable equipment, drugs and oxygen available for dealing with medical emergencies. This was this was in line with the Resuscitation UK guidelines. The emergency drugs were all in date and the drugs were securely kept along with emergency oxygen in a central location known to all staff. This meant that the risk to people during dental procedures was reduced and patients are treated in a safe and secure way.

The practice manager showed us a very comprehensive file of risk assessments covering all aspects of clinical governance. These were very well maintained and up to date. This means that patients are at a reduced risk of untoward occurrences.