• Prison healthcare

Dental Department HMP Swaleside

Brabazon Road, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppy, Kent, ME12 4AX

Provided and run by:
Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust

All Inspections

Location was not visited for this report

During an inspection looking at part of the service

​We carried out a focused desktop inspection of healthcare services provided by Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust (KCHFT) at HMP Swaleside in October 2019.

Following our last joint inspection with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) in December 2018, we found that the quality of healthcare provided by KCHFT at this location required improvement. We issued a Requirement Notice in relation to Regulation 9, Person-centred care, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The purpose of this desktop inspection was to determine if the healthcare services provided by KCHFT were meeting the legal requirements of the above regulations, under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. 

We do not currently rate services provided in prisons. 

At this inspection we found that the provider had made the following improvements:

  • Additional dentist treatment and dental nurse triage sessions had been held to mitigate for sessions cancelled in 2018.
  • The provider had scheduled training for prison-based healthcare staff in dental triage to reduce the need for unnecessary urgent referrals.
  • Dental appointments had been added to the prison’s daily activity list to improve patients’ access to the service.
  • The waiting list management process had been changed to enable waiting times to be monitored more accurately.
  • The impact of failures to attend appointments was being promoted within the prison to reduce the number of missed appointments which would then require rebooking.
  • The waiting times for routine dental appointments had reduced significantly, although they still remained too high.
  • The provider had submitted a business case to NHS England for additional regular sessions at HMP Swaleside to support ongoing patient need.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to work to reduce the waiting time for routine dental appointments.

24 March 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At a previous inspection of Dental Department HMP Swaleside in April 2014 we had concerns about the length of time patients waited to see a dentist and the number of patients who were waiting to see a dentist. We asked the provider, Dental Department HMP Swaleside to submit an action plan telling us what action they would take to improve patient access to dental service.

We undertook a follow up visit on 24 March 2015 and found that the provider had addressed the issues and there had been an improvement in the delivery of the service to patients. We found that appointment waiting times for dental services were shorter and patient waiting lists were an acceptable length. We found improvements had been made to the service which included access to dental triage clinics, the management of appointments, responding to complaints and managing patient non-attendance.

28, 29 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke to five people about the care and treatment they received. One of these people said they were satisfied with their care and treatment. The remaining people said their treatment was not of a good standard primarily because of waiting for long periods for a check- up and for treatment. Whilst the provider told us there was an issue with people not attending some of the appointments it was recognised this was an issue. Consequently, steps had been taken to increase the availability of dental treatment from two and a half to three and a half days a week.

We also observed one person's dental check-up. We spoke to one of the dentists and to a dental nurse. We also spoke to the provider's Dental Clinical Director, Leadership and Quality.

We also used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

We saw the service had safeguarding policies and procedures which staff said they were trained in. Staff were aware of the joint protocols between service providers in the prison regarding those people assessed as being at risk of self-harm. This is called the Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) framework.

We saw the service had effective procedures for the prevention and control of infections. We saw the dental treatment room was clean, hygienic and well equipped although we noted the entries on the cleaning schedule showed the floors were not being cleaned as planned.

The provider and commissioner of the service had recognised the need to increase the provision of dental treatment due to a backlog of people waiting to be seen.

The dental service had access to emergency equipment such as emergency medicines and a defibrillator. Staff were trained in emergency procedures and basis life support.

Is the service effective?

The service had recognised that people were waiting too long for both check-up appointments and ongoing treatment. The records made on System One used by the service showed more than 200 people waiting for a check-up and some people had waited 37 weeks to see a dentist for a check- up. One person told us he had waited for 20 months for his dentures which he still did not have. Records confirmed this person had been waiting for dentures since a denture impression was taken more than six months previously. The provider told us this person had additional dental work during the six month wait which contributed to the dentures not fitting.

Another person complained that he could not get an appointment for the dentist to see his loose front tooth and had presented himself to the health centre nurses in order to get an appointment with the dentist.

Staff were trained in relevant subjects and staff confirmed their skills and knowledge were regularly assessed.

Is the service caring?

We observed one person receiving a dental check- up. The dentist and dental nurse took time to explain and converse with the person regarding his dental needs and how he could maintain good dental hygiene. The person was treated in privacy and the treatment door was closed.

Is the service responsive?

We saw the service had a complaints procedure. The service maintained a record of complaints. People told us they were able to make a complaint by using the complaints forms on the prison accommodation units. Complaints leaflets were available in the dental treatment room and the Dental Clinical Director, Leadership and Quality, told us the service provided a translation service for anyone whose first language was not English.

The service was not providing sufficient dental clinics so that the dentals needs of the prison population could be met. The service had, however, recognised this and had increased the numbers of dental clinics.

Is the service well led?

We saw the service took action to address individual complaints made by people. The provider recognised the need to increase its staffing hours and clinics to meet the demand for dental services. At the time of the inspection it was too early to say if this was effective in reducing waiting and treatment times. We identified there needs to be a significant period of increased availability of dental clinics so that people are seen in a timely way and that people get appropriate treatment.