Outwood Dental Care

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found this practice was providing responsive 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 Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

Staff had carried out a disability access audit and had an action plan to continually improve access for patients.

Staff described the reasonable adjustments they had made to ensure the practice was accessible. A portable hearing induction loop was available for people with impaired hearing. Large print or information in alternative formats could be produced for anyone requiring this. A magnifying glass was available for anyone who needed this. The ground floor of the practice was wheelchair accessible offering a fully accessible ground floor surgery and accessible toilet, Language translation services were available by phone, and a sign language interpreter was available if needed and could be pre-booked.

Staff were clear about the importance of providing emotional support to patients when delivering care. For example, where patients would attend with their carer, sufficient time was made available within appointments so that patients’ needs could be discussed and treatment planned in a way that met people’s needs.

The practice offered treatment to children which included the use of inhalation sedation during treatment. This was under a ‘shared care’ model, between the dental hospital and the practice. If a patient required more complex treatment, they would be referred to the dental hospital and treated by the same practice dentist, but in a hospital setting. This shared care arrangement was helping to meet the needs of children who would otherwise have to wait to be seen by the dental hospital. The impact of this work meant children were being seen and treated sooner, in a more familiar local setting.

The practice supported more vulnerable members of society, for example, patients living with dementia or adults and children with a learning disability.

The practice displayed its opening hours and provided information on their website.

The frequency of appointments was agreed between the dentist and the patient, giving due regard to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

The practice provided telephone numbers for patients needing emergency dental treatment during the working day and when the practice was not open.

At the time of our inspection, patients who needed an urgent appointment were offered one in a timely manner. When the practice was unable to offer an urgent appointment, they worked with partner organisations to support urgent access for patients.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.