You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 16 August 2017

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 1 August 2017 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

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

The Dental Hygiene Clinic is in Hove and provides private treatment to patients of all ages. The practice is within a shared building and the provider works alongside Hove Dental Clinic at the same location.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and pushchairs. Car parking spaces, including a space for patients with disabled badges, are available near the practice.

The dental team includes one dental hygienist, a dental nurse and one receptionist. The practice has two treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal hygienist there. They have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

On this occasion we did not supply CQC comment cards to be filled in by patients as this was an unannounced inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with the dental hygienist, one dental nurse, and the receptionist. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday 9am to 6pm

Tuesday 8.30am to 7pm

Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 8.30am to 5pm

Our key findings were:

  • The practice was clean and well maintained.
  • The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk.
  • The practice had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The practice had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • The appointment system met patients’ needs.
  • The practice had effective leadership. Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The practice dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.

We identified an area/s of notable practice.

Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibility to respect people’s diversity and human rights. We looked at a significant event where a patient had booked online but the system had not recognised the booking due to a different title being recorded. As a result the practice contacted the softwear company and organised three further honorific titles for people who identified as gender neutral; Mx, Ind and M in addition to the usual gender specific honorific titles; Mr, Mrs and Ms etc.

Inspection areas

Safe

No action required

Updated 16 August 2017

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

The practice had systems and processes to provide safe care and treatment. They used learning from incidents and complaints to help them improve.

Staff received training in safeguarding and knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and how to report concerns.

Staff were qualified for their roles and the practice completed essential recruitment checks.

Premises and equipment were clean and properly maintained. The practice followed national guidance for cleaning, sterilising and storing dental instruments.

The practice had suitable arrangements for dealing with medical and other emergencies.

Effective

No action required

Updated 16 August 2017

We found that this practice was providing effective care in accordance with

the relevant regulations.

The hygienist assessed patients’ needs and provided care and treatment in line with recognised guidance. Patients were referred by a dentist and also by direct access. The hygienist discussed treatment with patients so they could give informed consent and recorded this in their records.

The practice had clear arrangements when patients needed to be referred to other dental or health care professionals.

The practice supported staff to complete training relevant to their roles and had systems to help them monitor this.

Caring

No action required

Updated 16 August 2017

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with

the relevant regulations.

On this occasion we did not seek feedback about the practice from patients. However we did look at compliments and survey results which indicated that patients were positive about the service the practice provided.

We saw that staff protected patients’ privacy and were aware of the importance of confidentiality. Patients said staff treated them with dignity and respect.

Responsive

No action required

Updated 16 August 2017

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

The practice’s appointment system was efficient and met patients’ needs. Patients could get an appointment quickly if in pain.

Staff considered patients’ different needs. This included providing facilities for disabled patients, families with children and patients that identified as gender neutral.

The practice took patients views seriously. They valued compliments from patients and responded to concerns and complaints quickly and constructively.

Well-led

No action required

Updated 16 August 2017

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

The practice had arrangements to ensure the smooth running of the service. These included systems for the practice team to discuss the quality and safety of the care and treatment provided. There was a clearly defined management structure and staff felt supported and appreciated.

The practice team kept complete patient dental care records which were, clearly written or typed and stored securely.

The practice monitored clinical and non-clinical areas of their work to help them improve and learn. This included asking for and listening to the views of patients and staff.