Deneholme Dental Practice

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 providing well-led 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 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 had a governance system that included policies and procedures, which were accessible to staff and were reviewed on a regular basis.

Systems and processes were embedded, and the inspection did not highlight any significant issues or omissions.

Staff had clear responsibilities, and systems of accountability to support good governance.

Staff were 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.

There were effective processes for identifying and managing risks, investigating incidents and accidents, and for receiving and acting on safety alerts.

The practice had systems and processes for learning, quality assurance and continuous improvement. This included undertaking audits according to recognised guidance.

Concerns and complaints were responded to appropriately, and outcomes were discussed to share learning and for improvement. Patient feedback was always given to the team both individually and during team meetings, this was so the team could be celebrated and any learning outcomes could be shared.

We noted innovative approaches to providing person-centred care. For example, the practice amended their medical history forms to include specific check boxes for autistic patients or patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This was so the practice could help support patients that may have extra sensory needs, such as needing extra dark glasses due to the lights being very bright in surgeries. The practice also aimed to help people with mobility, dexterity or

musculoskeletal conditions as much as possible.

Staff feedback was obtained through meetings, appraisals and informal discussions. They were encouraged to offer suggestions for improvements to the service, and they said these were listened to and acted upon, where appropriate.

Feedback from patients, the public and external partners was collected to which the practice responded. For example, some patients had raised how certain questions were phrased when asked at reception, so all practice staff were sent on customer service training. It was also noted that patients preferred to have their medical history printed out, so they could check over this rather than being asked if there had been any changes.

The practice had taken steps to improve environmental sustainability. For example, the practice actively recycled items, such as printer cartridges and food waste alongside their normal recycling. The practice also had a uniform reuse programme for staff and used plastic-free or bamboo alternatives where possible.

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.