Newport Dental and Oral Health Studio

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found this practice was providing effective 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 Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged.

Staff kept up to date with some evidence-based practice. Improvements could be made to ensure up to date knowledge of relevant legislation and guidance was accessible, for example, antimicrobial prescribing.

We looked at 10 patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was not in line with recognised guidance. In particular, dental care records did not consistently record consent, Basic Periodontal Examinations, risk assessments, extra-oral examinations, diagnoses, treatment options or documentation of discussions with patients. We did not see evidence the dentists consistently justified or reported on the radiographs they took. In some instances, there were no contemporaneous clinical notes recorded for a number of appointments; for example, there was no record of an invasive treatment where multiple dental implants were placed. Additionally patient identifiable images and reports were stored on the dentist’s personal mobile device which posed risks to information governance and data security. We did, however, see evidence that staff obtained consent for the placement of implants. Following advice from the compliance company, record keeping templates were developed. The provider gave assurance that these would be implemented to improve the quality, consistency and detail within the patient care records.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

The practice did not have systems for prescribing of medicines in line with current guidance. They did not carry out antimicrobial prescribing audits.

Patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. The practice should implement a system to ensure patient referrals to other dental or health care professionals are centrally monitored to ensure they are received in a timely manner and not lost. The practice had not registered with the Dental Referrals Portal to allow the referral of patients with suspected cancer under the national faster diagnosis pathways. Referrals not submitted via the appropriate portal may be rejected by secondary care providers, which could result in delays to the diagnosis and treatment of suspected cancer.

Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.