You are here

The Charles Clifford Dental Hospital Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

We inspected the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital as part of the inspection of Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust from 7 to 11 December 2015. We carried out this inspection as part of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) comprehensive inspection programme.

We rated Charles Clifford Dental Hospital as good. We rated safe, effective, caring and well-led as good. Responsive was rated as outstanding.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Infection control procedures were in place. The environment was clean and where maintenance issues had been identified these had been placed on the risk register.
  • The acute dental service was effective and focused on patients and their oral health care.
  • Patients and relatives told us they had positive experiences of care within this service.
  • The use of clinical audit to monitor effectiveness and initiate improvements in practice was evident.
  • The acute dental services at Charles Clifford Dental Hospital (CCDH) were well led.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • We saw examples of innovative care approaches for extremely anxious patients, and extended working hours to allow patients to attend evening clinics.

However, there were also areas of practice where the trust should make improvements. the trust should:

  • Ensure that staff are sufficiently trained in mandatory training

  • Take action in relation to compatibility of radiological imagery and the new electronic record system, to avoid the need for patients to walk between clinical areas mid-procedure which negatively effects their privacy and dignity whilst being treated.

  • Review governance minutes so they are clearly labelled to identify which dental clinical stream the papers apply to, and have a robust system for taking appropriate action on areas of concern raised within these meetings.

  • Review pathway documents so they are regularly reviewed, dated, version controlled and monitored.

  • Review and establish robust procedures for gaining consent of patients for local anaesthetic extractions.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 9 June 2016

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

Checks on specific services

Surgery

Good

Updated 9 June 2016

Safety, effectiveness, caring and well-led were all rated as good. We rated responsive as outstanding.

Staff protected patients from abuse and avoidable harm. Systems for identifying, investigating and learning from patient safety incidents were in place. Infection control procedures were in place. The environment was clean and where maintenance issues had been identified these had been placed on the risk register.

The acute dental service was effective and focused on patients and their oral health care. We saw examples of innovative care approaches for extremely anxious patients, and extended working hours to allow patients to attend evening clinics.

Patients and relatives told us they had positive experiences of care within this service. We saw good examples of staff providing compassionate and effective care.We found staff to be hard working, caring and committed to the care and treatment they provided. Staff and students spoke with passion about their work and conveyed their dedication to what they did.

The use of clinical audit to monitor effectiveness and initiate improvements in practice was evident.

The acute dental services at Charles Clifford Dental Hospital (CCDH) were well led.Organisational, governance and risk management structures were in place.The senior management team were visible and the working culture appeared to be open, transparent and supportive. Both staff and students told us they felt well supported and able to raise any concerns.

We were onsite at the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital for two days.We spoke with 48 members of staff, 15 patients, eight relatives of patients and reviewed 13 sets of patient notes.