Newport Dental and Oral Health Studio

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found this practice was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations. We will be following up on our concerns to ensure the provider had made the required improvements.

During our inspection of this key question, we found

a lack of systems or processes that enabled the registered person to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services being provided. There was also a lack of systems or processes to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of service users and others who may be at risk.

the registered person had systems or processes in place that operating ineffectively in that they failed to enable the registered person to ensure that accurate, complete and contemporaneous records were being maintained securely in respect of each service user.

This resulted in a breach of Regulation 17, (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

You can find more details of our concerns in the detailed findings below.

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

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The practice did not have an effective governance system in place. Risk assessments were not undertaken, policies were not reviewed and audits were not completed to ensure the service operated in a safe and effective manner. Following notification of the inspection, the provider demonstrated a responsive approach by taking action to address the identified concerns, and the most significant risks were mitigated. However, the systems and processes introduced shortly before the inspection had not yet been embedded into the day-to-day operation of the service. As a result, on the day of inspection, we were not assured that the provider had sufficient understanding of the relevant legal requirements and professional guidance necessary to ensure the service operated safely and in accordance with regulations.

The information and evidence presented during the inspection was not well organised, however, we acknowledged that improvements were in progress. There were new processes for identifying and managing risks, investigating incidents and accidents, and for receiving and acting on safety alerts. New policies had been applied and systems and processes for learning, quality assurance and continuous improvement were being implemented, including the introduction of planned audits in line with recognised guidance. We will undertake at least one follow‑up inspection to assess whether these systems and processes have been effectively embedded into practice and are being sustained over time, and to confirm that actions identified through risk assessments have been completed. This will also help ensure that service users receive safe, effective care and treatment.

Staff were broadly aware of the importance of protecting patients’ personal information. Staff password protected patients’ electronic care records, and paper records were stored securely and complied with General Data Protection Regulations. However, patient identifiable images and reports were stored on a personal mobile telephone, and we were not assured that patients had provided consent for this arrangement, nor were we fully reassured regarding the security of the device.

Concerns and complaints were responded to appropriately. The provider told us that the service did not carry out formal or structured patient satisfaction surveys, although a feedback box and forms were provided and a link to provide online feedback was on display in the waiting room. The provider told us that patients did not provide much feedback.

Staff feedback was obtained through informal discussions.

The practice had taken steps to improve environmental sustainability. For example, recycling was encouraged and the digital workflow reduced waste and transportation.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.