The Mapleleaf Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

Staff had carried out a disability access audit and had an action plan to continually improve access for patients.

Staff described the reasonable adjustments they had made to ensure the practice was accessible. The practice had access to large print or alternative formats of information, reading glasses and a magnifying glass to support patients with impaired vision. The practice also had electronic tablets for patients to complete consent forms and medical histories.

Staff were clear about the importance of providing emotional support to patients when delivering care. For example, staff at the practice were aware of individuals’ needs and preferences for how they liked each appointment conducted. This was done through a series of conversations with patients over their appointments to ensure that they felt supported.

The practice supported more vulnerable members of society, for example, patients living with dementia or adults and children with a learning disability. The practice made reasonable adjustments to support patients living with dementia and adults and children with a learning disability. Where possible, appointments were arranged at times that aligned with patients’ individual needs and daily routines.

The practice also provided additional appointment reminders, including telephone calls prior to an appointment to help support attendance where required.

The practice displayed its opening hours and provided information on their website, patient information leaflet.

The frequency of appointments was agreed between the dentist and the patient, giving due regard to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

The practice provided telephone numbers for patients needing emergency dental treatment during the working day and when the practice was not open.

At the time of our inspection, patients who needed an urgent appointment were offered one in a timely manner. When the practice was unable to offer an urgent appointment, they worked with partner organisations to support urgent access for patients.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.