You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 January 2014
Date of Publication: 13 February 2014
Inspection Report published 13 February 2014 PDF | 83.38 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 8 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with other regulators or the Department of Health.

Our judgement

The provider had a system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

The acting manager explained that regular monitoring and auditing of the service was carried out to ensure that good standards were maintained. This included an infection control self-assessment, monitoring and checks of emergency and regularly used medication stocks. Monitoring and auditing of the equipment used in the service, included checks of the function of the equipment and regular servicing. We saw evidence that portable appliances had been tested, fire extinguishers had been checked and a fire safety risk assessment had been carried out. There was evidence available to demonstrate that equipment used for sedation was also checked. This showed the provider had systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

The provider had produced satisfaction questionnaires which were located in the main waiting room. The acting manager said, "We don't document the outcomes unless they are negative". People we spoke with told us they were happy with the service they received, they had not noticed the questionnaires in the waiting room nor had they been asked for their views of the service. The provider may find it useful to note there was no evidence provided during the inspection of how the provider regularly invited people's comments on the quality of service.

People using the service told us they had not had any cause to complain. They told us they would raise any concerns directly with the dentist or practice manager. The procedure for making a complaint or raising a concern was also clearly set out in the patient information leaflets located in the waiting room. This meant people were made aware of how to raise a concern or complaint if they wanted to. The acting manager told us, "If we received a minor complaint or concern we try to resolve it as soon as possible. We would then note the concern and the resolution in the patients notes. We haven't received a written complaint". While acknowledging the provider had a system in place for the management, investigation and resolution of complaints. It may be useful to note that recording any concerns within patient records only, may not allow for an audit of complaints received and resolved as an indicator of the quality of service provided.