Archived: Mydentist - St Mary's Street - Ely Also known as mydentist

Updated 8 June 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

The inspection took place on 23 May 2016 and was conducted by a CQC inspector and a specialist dental advisor.

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.

Prior to the inspection we asked the practice to send us some information which we reviewed. This included the complaints they had received in the last 12 months, their latest statement of purpose, the details of their staff members, their qualifications, and proof of registration with their professional bodies.

We also reviewed the information we held about the practice.

During the inspection we spoke with one dentist, the practice manager, and two dental nurses, one trainee dental nurse, and two receptionists. We reviewed policies, procedures and other documents. We received feedback from 15 patients who used the service.

Updated 8 June 2016

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 23 May 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

Mydentist Ely provides NHS and private dental treatment to patients of all ages and is part of the mydentist group.

The practice manager is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

There are three dentists and two hygienists, two dental nurses, and two trainee dental nurses. Two receptionists support the practice manager. The dental nurses are responsible for the cleaning of the clinical areas of the practice; in addition the practice has a contract cleaner daily.

The practice is located in the centre of the City of Ely and operates over three floors. On the ground floor there are two surgeries, reception, and waiting area making it accessible to wheelchair users. We noted that the practice staff provided a ramp and assisted patients with low mobility or those who used a wheelchair to access the premises. There is also a staff room and two further rooms that are not currently in use. On the first floor there are a further three treatment rooms, a room for developing X-rays (where first aid equipment is available), and a decontamination room for cleaning, sterilising, and packing dental instruments. The practice manager’s office and staff changing room is located on the third floor. There is a toilet suitable for disabled patients and there is some free car park at the front of the building, with a short stay car park nearby. There is a secure area for the storage of waste at the rear of the property.

We received feedback from 15 patients during the inspection process. We received positive comments about the cleanliness of the premises, the kindness and responsiveness of staff, and the quality of treatment provided. Patients told us that staff explained treatment plans to them well. Patients reported that the practice had seen them on the same day for emergency treatment.

Our key findings were:

• Patients were treated with dignity and respect and their confidentiality was maintained.
• The appointment system met the needs of patients and waiting times were kept to a minimum.
• Patients received clear explanations about their proposed treatment and its costs, benefits, and risks and were involved in making decisions about them.

• Staff had received safeguarding training and knew the processes to follow to raise any concerns.

• Staff had been trained to deal with medical emergencies and appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were readily available and accessible.

• Infection control procedures were in place and staff had access to personal protective equipment.

• Patients’ care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with evidence based guidelines and current legislation.

• The practice staff felt involved in the running of the practice and worked as a team.

• Systems, and risk assessments, were in place to give oversight and ensure compliance with regulations.
• Regular audits were performed to manage performance, identify and mitigate risks, and encourage improvements.
• Practice staff had failed to report inadequate findings when recording water temperatures to manage the spread of legionella.
• There was insufficient air flow in the decontamination room.

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

• Review the infection control audit and complete any actions identified. Ensure the outstanding action from November 2015 relating to insufficient air flow in the decontamination room is completed.