The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Archived: Newcastle Under Lyme Dental Practice

Dental Surgery, 1 Mount Pleasant, Newcastle Under Lyme, Staffordshire, ST5 1DA (01782) 616178

Provided and run by:
Dr Hanel Suresh Nathwani

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

25 March 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook a focused inspection of Newcastle Under Lyme Dental Practice on 25 March 2019. This inspection was carried out to review in detail the actions taken by the registered provider to improve the quality of care and to confirm that the practice was now meeting legal requirements.

The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

We undertook a comprehensive inspection of Newcastle Under Lyme Dental Practice on 18 February 2019 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We found the registered provider was not providing well led care and was in breach of regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can read our report of that inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Newcastle Under Lyme Dental Practice on our website www.cqc.org.uk.

As part of this inspection we asked:

• Is it well-led?

When one or more of the five questions are not met we require the service to make improvements and send us an action plan. We then inspect again after a reasonable interval, focusing on the areas where improvement was required.

Our findings were:

Are services well-led?

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

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breach we found at our inspection on 18 February 2019.

Background

Newcastle Under Lyme Dental Practice provides private treatment to adults and children.

Due to the nature of the practice wheelchair access is not possible. Wheelchair users would be signposted to a local practice which is fully accessible. Car parking spaces are available near the practice.

The dental team includes seven dentists, five dental nurses, a dental hygienist, two dental hygiene therapists, a deputy practice manager and a practice manager. The practice has five treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the practice owner. 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.

During the inspection we spoke with one dentist and the practice manager. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday, Tuesday and Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm

Wednesday from 9:00am to 7:00pm

Thursday from 10:00am to 7:00pm

Our key findings were:

  • Improvements had been made to the infection control processes.
  • Improvements had been made to the processes for managing the risks associated with radiation and Legionella.
  • Improvements had been made to the process for monitoring staff training.

18 February 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on 18 February 2019 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 not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Newcastle Under Lyme Dental Practice provides private treatment to adults and children.

Due to the nature of the practice wheelchair access is not possible. Wheelchair users would be signposted to a local practice which is fully accessible. Car parking spaces are available near the practice.

The dental team includes eight dentists, five dental nurses, a dental hygienist, two dental hygiene therapists, a deputy practice manager and a practice manager. The practice has five treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the practice owner. 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 the day of inspection, we collected 16 CQC comment cards filled in by patients.

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

The practice is open:

Monday, Tuesday and Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm

Wednesday from 9:00am to 7:00pm

Thursday from 10:00am to 7:00pm

Our key findings were:

  • The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
  • Improvements could be made to the infection control processes.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. On the day of inspection, the medical emergency kit did not reflect nationally recognised guidance. The missing items were ordered, and evidence was sent after the inspection to confirm this.
  • Improvements could be made to the process for managing the risks associated with Legionella and the use of radiation.
  • The provider had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The provider had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • The system for monitoring staff training was not effective.
  • 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.
  • Staff were providing preventive care and supporting patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The provider asked patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The provider dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
  • The provider had suitable information governance arrangements.

We identified regulations the provider was not complying with. They must:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

Full details of the regulation the provider was not meeting are at the end of this report.

27 February 2015

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this unannounced responsive inspection with a dental clinical adviser after we received concerns about the service. We were told that there were a number of cross infection problems at the practice which were of concern. These were that: Bags of open clinical waste were left lying in staff areas; Dental instruments were not dated after they were sterilised; Dirty instruments were left out to dry overnight and not processed in line with procedures.

The caller also told us that: A member of staff was asked by one of the owners to search through sharps boxes for an instrument that had been lost; There was no ongoing training or supervision of staff due to the absence of an effective manager; Staff do not go through policies and procedures or have regular meetings.

We spoke with one of the dentists at the practice, who was also one of the owners and the business manager about the concerns we received. We found evidence that confirmed two of the concerns raised. At the inspection we found that there was a bag containing clinical waste in a room that was planned to be used as the designated decontamination room. The dentist (owner) confirmed that a member of staff did empty the contents of a sharps box to look for an instrument that could not be found. We found no further evidence to confirm the other concerns raised.

25 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We gave the provider 48 hours notice of this inspection which ensured that we were able to speak to staff and people who used the service. During the inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, four members of staff and the registered manager.

People we spoke with who used the service told us they were fully involved in the treatment they received and knew why it was needed. One person told us, 'The dentist explained everything and took me through each step of the treatment'. Another person told us, 'I am always asked if I have any concerns, if my medical history changed and kept fully informed'.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service and staff treated them with dignity and respect. One person told us, 'I am quite nervous about having dental treatment, but all the staff but me at ease. The dentist and the nurse kept chatting throughout the treatment making sure I was okay'. Staff explained the actions they would take to reassure people who were nervous of dental treatment.

We saw that the provider had systems in place to protect people who used the service from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with understood the actions required if they had concerns that someone who used the service was at risk of harm.

Staff we spoke with told us that they felt supported by their manager to carry out their role effectively. We saw records that staff had opportunities to update their professional development and their professional registrations.

The provider had systems in place to gain feedback from people who used the service. We saw that regular checks were undertaken to assess and monitor the service provided.