• Dentist
  • Dentist

The Vale Dental Clinic

50 The Vale, London, NW11 8SG (020) 8455 0465

Provided and run by:
Dr Benjamin Levy-Agami

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

All Inspections

03 November 2016

During a routine inspection

We commenced an unannounced inspection of the service on 24 October 2016. Following our visit the principal dentist wrote to us to say what improvements would be made within the practice.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 03 November 2016 to ask the practice the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

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 providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

The Vale Dental Clinic is located in the London Borough of Barnet and provides private dental treatment to both adults and children. The practice provides mainly emergency dental services. The premises are on the ground floor and consist of one treatment room, a reception area and a decontamination room. The practice is open Monday – Saturday 11:00am – 11:00pm.

The staff consists of the principal dentist, two associate dentists, a dental nurse, a trainee dental nurse and a practice manager.

The principal dentist is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual ‘registered person’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the practice is run.

We reviewed nine CQC comment cards and the practice patient satisfaction survey. Patients were positive about the service. They were complimentary about the friendly and caring attitude of the staff.

The inspection took place over one day and was carried out by a CQC inspector and a dental specialist advisor.

Our key findings were:

  • There were appropriate equipment and access to emergency drugs to enable the practice to respond to medical emergencies. Staff knew where equipment was stored.
  • We found the dentists regularly assessed each patient’s gum health and took X-rays at appropriate intervals.
  • Patients were involved in their care and treatment planning so they could make informed decisions.
  • There were effective processes in place to reduce and minimise the risk and spread of infection.
  • The practice had effective safeguarding processes in place and staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and child protection.
  • Equipment, such as the autoclave (steriliser), fire extinguishers, and X-ray equipment had all been checked for effectiveness and had been regularly serviced.
  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect and confidentiality was maintained.
  • The practice had implemented clear procedures for managing comments, concerns or complaints.
  • Patients indicated that they found the team to be efficient, professional, caring and reassuring.
  • Patients had good access to appointments, including emergency appointments, which were available on the same day.
  • Leadership structures were clear and there were processes in place for dissemination of information and feedback to staff.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned in line with current guidance such as from the Faculty of General Dental Practice.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Review the practice’s arrangements for receiving and responding to patient safety alerts, recalls and rapid response reports issued from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and through the Central Alerting System (CAS), as well as from other relevant bodies such as, Public Health England (PHE).
  • Review the practice’s infection control procedures and protocols giving due regard to guidelines issued by the Department of Health - Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices and The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice about the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.
  • Review its responsibilities as regards to the Control of Substance Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002 and, ensure all documentation is up to date and staff understand how to minimise risks associated with the use of and handling of these substances.
  • Review the current Legionella risk assessment and implement the required actions including the monitoring and recording of water temperatures, giving due regard to the guidelines issued by the Department of Health - Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices and The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice about the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

9 October 2013

During a routine inspection

A patient we spoke with was complimentary about the service, saying 'it's all good.' People's medical histories were taken routinely and an audit of patient records had included a review of this. Equipment was in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

Systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. This included infection control practices which followed relevant guidance produced by the Department of Health (DH). For example, the process for decontaminating instruments took place in a separate room as per best practice outlined by DH. This process had been audited and small changes had been made as a result.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to keep emergency medicines safely and enable access in the event of an emergency. Drugs recommended by the Resuscitation Council UK were in place and in date. Checklists showed they were checked regularly.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment and to assess and monitor the quality of services provided. Four audits had been undertaken in the ten months since the practice opened. These included a patient survey, which gave positive feedback. When we asked the patient we spoke with if they would recommend the practice to others they said yes, and they themselves had been recommended.