The Dentist

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found this practice was providing effective 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 Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred, care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged. They created additional resources to raise awareness of other healthcare issues. For example, to support patients to recognise and act on the early signs of cancers.

Staff kept up-to-date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

The practice offered dental implants. Staff obtained full consent, kept detailed records and had access to the appropriate equipment for the placement of implants.

The practice offered conscious sedation for patients. The practice’s systems included checks before and after treatment, emergency equipment requirements, medicines management, sedation equipment checks, and staff availability and training.

The practice offered orthodontic treatment for patients. The orthodontist carried out patient assessments in line with recognised guidance from the British Orthodontic Society.

The practice had an onsite laboratory to manufacture dental devices which was registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

We looked at a selection of patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was in line with recognised guidance. We saw evidence the dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

The practice had systems for prescribing of medicines and antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. We noted the prescribing of antimicrobials was not consistently in line with current guidance, and audits had not highlighted this. We signposted the provider to resources and more comprehensive audit tools to support them to review this.

Where applicable, patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national faster diagnosis standard.

Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.