The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Archived: Andrew Peers Dental Practice

1 Summerfield Road, Guilden Sutton, Chester, Cheshire, CH3 7SW (01244) 301528

Provided and run by:
Mr. Andrew Peers

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

22 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook a short site visit on 22 April 2013 and followed up on two areas of non compliance that had been identified in the previous inspection on 12 November 2012. We reviewed documentation with regard to training certificates relating to safeguarding adults from abuse and safeguarding policies. We also reviewed the recruitment and induction processes.

We did not speak to patients or staff during this visit.

12 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who used the practice on the day of the review. They told us they were very happy with the service provided. They felt their dignity was maintained and their privacy protected. Comments included "The service is excellent", "The staff are friendly", "No problems at all" and "The environment is spot on - recently refurbished." They also said the staff were helpful, kind and very friendly. People using the practice told us they had discussed treatment options and the costs involved with the dentists and they discussed the different treatment options. People told us they felt reassured and at ease whilst receiving treatment at the dental practice. Comments included "I don't have any concerns or complaints about the service" and "They are very efficient."

Staff commented "I love my job" and "The provider and practice manager are really nice." Staff also said "More frequent meetings would be good" and "The staff team is small and we get on well together."

We found that none of the staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and a policy was not available at the practice. Adult protection is designed to ensure that any possible problems that arise are dealt with openly and people are protected from possible harm. We saw that the recruitment and selection procedures were not effective and that all relevant staff checks had not been completed and therefore people who used the service were not protected by robust procedures.