You are here

Archived: City Dental Practice

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 8 December 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 8 December 2015 to ask the practice the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

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

Are services effective?

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

Are services caring?

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

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

Are services well-led?

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

Background

City Dental Practice is situated on the first floor of premises in Nottingham city centre. The practice is not accessible to patients with restricted mobility, such as those who use a wheelchair, as there is no lift available. The practice was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in December 2011. The practice provides regulated dental services to patients in Nottingham. The practice provides both NHS and private dental treatment, with approximately 60% being NHS patients. Services provided include general dentistry, dental hygiene, teeth whitening, crowns and bridges, and root canal treatment.

The practice is open Mondays to Thursdays: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm; and Fridays: 9:00 am to 4:30 pm. The practice is closed at the weekend. Access for urgent treatment outside of opening hours is by ringing the practice telephone number and following the answerphone message. Alternatively patients could ring 111 and contact the NHS out-of-hours service.

The practice has two dentists, one dental hygienist, five dental nurses and two receptionists.

We received positive feedback from 49 patients about the services provided. Patients said the reception staff were friendly, welcoming and put them at their ease, patients also expressed satisfaction with the quality of dental care they received from their dentist. Many patients had been coming to the practice for a number of years, and had total confidence in the dentists and the practice as a whole.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice had systems and processes to record accidents, significant events and complaints. Learning from any complaints and significant incidents was recorded and learning was shared with staff. When necessary apologies were given to patients when things had gone wrong.
  • All staff had received whistle blowing training and discussions showed staff were aware of these procedures and how to use them.
  • Patients spoke very positively about the dental service they received, and several gave examples of positive experiences they had had at the practice. Patients said they were treated with dignity and respect, from the reception desk through to seeing the dentist.
  • Records showed there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of patients.
  • Staff had been trained to deal with medical emergencies. Emergency medicines, an automated external defibrillator (AED), and oxygen were readily available. An AED is a portable electronic device that automatically diagnoses life threatening irregularities of the heart and delivers an electrical shock to attempt to restore a normal heart rhythm.
  • The practice followed the relevant guidance from the Department of Health's: ‘Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05) for infection control.
  • Patients’ care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.
  • Patients said they were involved in making decisions about their treatment, and records in the practice supported this view. Options for treatment were identified and explored and discussed with patients.
  • Patients’ confidentiality was maintained.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Update the practice website to make it clear the practice is not fully accessible to patients with restricted mobility.