Archived: Pennine Dental and Medical Care

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 not providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns related to

the accuracy of patient care records,

the practice not having an effective system to monitor patients’ referrals to other dental or health care professionals and

the practice having an ineffective system to keep dental professionals up-to-date with current evidence-based practice.

These concerns resulted in breaches of Regulations 12 (Safe care and treatment) and 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

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.

Staff did not consistently keep up to date with current evidence-based practice, and did not always have the skills, knowledge, or experience required to carry out their roles

The practice principal was not aware of the typical symptoms of sepsis or their responsibilities under Duty of Candour. Additionally, despite being the only clinician currently working at the practice, they demonstrated a poor understanding of the management of medical emergencies and insufficient knowledge of relevant infection prevention and control guidance.

We looked at 6 patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was broadly in line with recognised guidance.

However, it was difficult to differentiate between clinicians as all entries in the clinical software was under the same login. The inability to identify which clinician performed specific treatment undermines continuity of care, audit, complaint handling and safeguarding.

Following the inspection, the provider told us that individual logins would be created for each clinician. The inspection highlighted concerns that the risks associated with using a shared login by multiple clinicians were unidentified and left un-addressed for a long period of time.

The practice principal told us 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 pathways. However, evidence of referrals made and a log to monitor these referrals were not available for review. We were not assured that effective systems were in place to ensure that that referrals were received by the intended recipients and acted on in a timely manner, particularly for urgent referrals.

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 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.