You are here

Archived: Shams Moopen Dental Practice - Luton Also known as Dental Practice - Luton

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 December 2012
Date of Publication: 12 January 2013
Inspection Report published 12 January 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 reviewed all the information we have gathered about Shams Moopen Dental Practice - Luton, looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 18 December 2012 and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced treatment that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the treatment that they received. One person said “This is the best dentist I have ever had they are friendly and always do exactly what is needed.”

The electronic records we reviewed showed that the dentist recorded the condition of the peoples’ teeth and the options available to them. In addition details of soft tissue screening checks, to look for conditions of the mouth such as early signs of cancer, were recorded.

There was a variety of health information leaflets and posters displayed in the waiting room. Also on display was a range of equipment that the dentist might recommend, that could be purchased from the surgery.

During our visit we saw new patients were asked to complete a medical history form. We were told that the paper forms were updated annually and the dentist updated the computer records at each visit. This ensured that the dentist considered any possible implications for the treatment being carried out. Peoples’ needs were assessed and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual treatment plan.

We observed the equipment, including oxygen and medication kept by the surgery for use in an emergency, was easily accessible. We saw records which confirmed that medication and oxygen cylinders were regularly checked to confirm they were ready for use. This showed that the service had developed appropriate systems and processes to check the effectiveness of all the equipment used. We were provided with evidence that all the staff who worked in the practice had received the required annual basic life support training.