Archived: Minster Dental Centre

Updated 29 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the practice was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

We carried out an announced, comprehensive inspection on 18 March 2016. The inspection team consisted of a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector and a dental specialist advisor.

Before the inspection we asked the practice for information to be sent, this included the complaints the practice had received in the last 12 months; their latest statement of purpose; the details of the staff members, their qualifications and proof of registration with their professional bodies.

We also reviewed the information we held about the practice and found there were no areas of concern.

During the inspection we spoke with four members of staff. We reviewed policies, procedures and other documents. We received feedback from 32 patients about the dental service.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 29 April 2016

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 18 March 2016 to ask the practice the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Minster Dental Care is located in a single storey building in the north Nottinghamshire town of Southwell. The practice was first registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2011. The practice provided a mostly private dental service. Services provided include general dentistry, dental hygiene, crowns and bridges, and root canal treatment.

The practice’s opening hours are: Monday to Thursday: 8 am to 5 pm and Friday: 8 am to 3 pm. The practice is closed at the weekends.

Access for urgent treatment outside of opening hours is by telephoning the practice and following the instructions on the answerphone message. The practice provides an emergency on call system with several other practices in the local area.

The principal dentist is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the practice is run.

The practice has four dentists; two dental hygienists; ten dental nurses; and one practice manager. The dental nurses also worked on reception.

We received positive feedback from 32 patients about the services provided. This was through CQC comment cards left at the practice prior to the inspection and by speaking with patients in the practice.

Our key findings were:

• Patients spoke positively about their experiences of the dental services they received, and said they were treated with dignity and respect.
• Patients’ confidentiality was maintained.
• There were systems in place to record accidents, significant events and complaints, and where learning points were identified these were shared with staff.
• There was a whistleblowing policy and procedures and staff were aware of these procedures and how to use them. All staff had access to the whistleblowing policy.
• Records showed there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of patients.
• The practice had the necessary equipment for staff to deal with medical emergencies, and staff had been trained how to use that equipment. This included oxygen and emergency medicines.
• The practice followed the relevant guidance from the Department of Health's: ‘Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05) for infection control.
• Dentists involved patients in discussions about the care and treatment on offer at the practice. Patient recall intervals were in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.
• Governance arrangements were in place for the smooth running of the practice; however the practice did not have a structured plan in place to audit quality and safety at the practice. They planned to establish a more detailed system for this.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Review the availability of an automated external defibrillator (AED) to manage medical emergencies giving due regard to guidelines issued by the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the General Dental Council (GDC) standards for the dental team.

• Review its responsibilities to the needs of people with a disability and the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and ensure an access audit is undertaken for the premises. In addition consider purchasing a portable hearing induction loop to assist patients’ who wear a hearing aid.

• Review the practice’s audit protocols of various aspects of the service, such as consent and dental care records at regular intervals to help improve the quality of service. Practice should also check all audits have documented learning points and the resulting improvements can be demonstrated.