You are here

Archived: Arta Dental Care

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 August 2013
Date of Publication: 18 September 2013
Inspection Report published 18 September 2013 PDF | 82.15 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)

Not met 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 carried out a visit on 8 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were involved in decisions which related to their treatment. However, people’s privacy was not respected. People were not provided with appropriate information regarding fees.

Reasons for our judgement

We saw that patients were greeted by friendly reception staff. We saw the practice had a system to ensure patients updated their medical history when they arrived at the practice. This meant the dentist was aware of any changes to patients health prior to treatment.

The practice had a general information leaflet available in the reception/waiting area. This identified the ‘out of hours’ procedure. We saw that this information was also displayed on the front entrance. We were informed by the practice manager that if a patient was in pain the dentist would endeavour to see them the same day either at the Arta practice or at a nearby practice where the dentist also offered treatment. We spoke to a patient who told us, “I have never had a problem getting an appointment but I know the dentist works at another practice locally where I could go and see them.”

The practice leaflet contained some information which was not current. For example, the practice opening hours were incorrectly identified. We saw that the contact telephone number for NHS Direct was incorrectly recorded for the area.

There was no written information available in the practice regarding fees. The practice manager was able to provide us with verbal information related to the cost of an examination and other treatments such as a filling. We saw from treatment plans that this information correlated with the fees that patients had been charged. We spoke to a patient who told us, “I am told how much work will cost before anything is done.”

There were two doors available to access the treatment room. One of the doors was located off the main entrance hall. On the day of our inspection this door was seen to be open and was prevented from closing due to plug extension sockets blocking the doorway. People walking into the practice were able to see into the treatment room. This meant that people’s privacy was not respected.

The practice had an equality and diversity policy. We saw wheelchair access was possible into the practice. We observed the receptionist assisting a patient, who had mobility issues, to the exit.

We saw that patients were provided with individual treatment plans. One patient we spoke with told us, “I am always given the chance to have a think about my treatment.”

The practice ran a dual system for patients notes, the computerised system ran alongside a paper based system. Paper based records were stored securely in a locked cabinet.

We saw evidence that risks and options had been discussed within the treatment records and consent was sought prior to treatment.