You are here

Archived: Simply Bright-Greenacres

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 June 2013
Date of Publication: 24 July 2013
Inspection Report published 24 July 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 26 June 2013, observed how people were being cared for and sent a questionnaire to people who use the service. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We spoke with three patients who used the practice about their experience of Simply-Bright Greenacres Dental Care. They told us that they liked the practice. They commented, “It’s wonderful. They answer all your questions. They are good and friendly. They welcome you. I do like coming here”. “I feel really good. Feel looked after and cared for”.

We looked at the records of ten consultations. They contained information about each person's medical history, what the dental examination had involved and a record of any treatment given together with the costs involved. We saw that all patients were involved in developing their treatment plan and had agreed to it. This plan was based on a full mouth assessment that was undertaken by the dentist. For example, we saw treatment plan that showed different stages of treatment and the prognosis of the treatment. We saw records of detailed discussions held between patient and dentist, signed and dated by the patient.

The clinic had three clinical surgeries and a hygienist surgery. The three surgeries were on the ground floor and could be used for disabled patients or those with mobility problems. The practice was staffed by three full time dentists, one hygienist, one practice manager, three dental nurses and two reception staff on the day we visited. We saw that flexibility in booking patients in for treatments meant that appointment times were arranged so that a realistic amount of time was allocated to each patient. This helped to ensure that people received the care and treatment they needed and met the needs of patients as at when required.

The patients spoken to were very positive about the treatment and quality of service that they received. Comments included, “I left another dentist to come here and I feel better because they have been able to cope with me, my reaction and I have confidence in their practice”.

A quality assurance system was in place to monitor the quality of x-rays taken as required by current radiography guidelines. This was supported by a weekly audit of dental x-rays carried out by staff and further discussions at monthly staff meetings. This meant that patients were protected from unnecessary exposure to radiation.

We saw records that showed staff were appropriately trained in medical emergencies that might occur within the practice, including dealing with a collapsed patient. Staff were trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This meant that there were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.