The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Penerley Road Dental Practice

8 Penerley Road, Catford, London, SE6 2LQ (020) 8698 1944

Provided and run by:
Miss Maryam Jahangiri

All Inspections

30 August 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on 30 August 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

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 form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

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

Penerley Road Dental Practice is in the London Borough of Lewisham and provides NHS and private treatment to adults and children.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs via a portable ramp. Car parking spaces are available off street near the practice.

The dental team includes four dentists one of whom is the principal dentist, two implantologists, three dental nurses, two dental hygienists, one receptionist and a practice manager. The practice has four treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal dentist there. They have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

On the day of inspection, we collected feedback from 34 patients.

During the inspection we spoke with the principal dentist, a dental nurse, the receptionist and the practice manager. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday - Thursday 9.am - 5.30pm

Friday 8.30am - 4.30pm

Our key findings were:

  • The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
  • The provider had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff.
  • The practice staff had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The provider had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • The provider was providing preventive care and supporting patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system met patients’ needs.
  • The practice had effective leadership and culture of continuous improvement.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The provider dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
  • The provider had suitable information governance arrangements.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

Review the fire safety risk assessment and ensure that any actions required are complete and ongoing fire safety management is effective.

Review the practice’s systems for assessing, monitoring and mitigating the various risks arising from when the dental hygienists work without chairside support.

5 April 2013

During a routine inspection

Our inspection on 5 April 2013 was a follow up inspection to check on improvements made by the provider after a previous inspection on 23 January 2013 where we found that people were not always fully protected from the risk of infection.

At our previous inspection we found that loose dental instruments were kept in clinical drawers in the treatment rooms. We also saw no documented evidence that staff were routinely checking and recording that autoclave seals were clean and intact.

At this inspection on 5 April 2013 we found that there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The practice was visually clean and suitable protective clothing was available. Clean re-usable hand instruments, if they were not being used within four hours, were pouched and that the pouches were dated to ensure that any clean instruments were only used within a specified timeframe; the infection control policy had been updated and reissued and described these new procedures.

Staff were recording weekly checks on the autoclave seals, although we found that there were two weeks in February and March 2013 where no check was recorded.

23 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with nine patients and six staff during our inspection at Penerley Road Dental Practice.

Most of the patients we spoke with had been registered at the practice for many years, and many of them had recommended the practice to their family and friends. They told us that their oral health had improved significantly as a result of the care and treatment they had received at the practice.

The patients told us that all the staff were helpful and friendly, and that they had received 'very good treatment'. One person described their dentist as "fantastic"; another said, "I couldn't ask for a better dentist".

People were given appropriate information and support about their treatment. They understood the care and treatment choices available to them, said staff encouraged them to ask questions about their treatment options and costs and had involved them in decisions.

The practice had facilities suitable for people with physical disabilities and/or mobility issues.

The practice was open on weekdays at core hours. Some people told us that they would prefer it if weekend or late afternoon appointments were available.

During our inspection we found that there was a risk that some sterile dental instruments were not being stored safely, and not all infection control checks were being documented by staff.