Archived: Higher Lane Dental Practice

Updated 10 March 2016

We carried out an announced, comprehensive inspection of this practice on 15 December 2015. The inspection was led by a CQC inspector accompanied by a dental specialist adviser.

We carried out the inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to look at the overall quality of the service.

We assessed information received from the provider before the inspection which included their statement of purpose, staff details and details of complaints.

During the inspection we reviewed policy documents, comments cards, spoke to patients, interviewed staff and carried out observations.

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 10 March 2016

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 15 December 2015 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

Higher Lane Dental Practice is located close to the centre of Lymm in a converted residential property and comprises two treatment rooms, waiting room, reception, and storage and staff rooms on the ground floor. There is one low step leading into the practice. Parking is available at the practice.

The practice provides general dental treatment and more complex treatment, including orthodontic treatment, implants and facial aesthetics, to private patients. The practice is open Monday 9am-5pm, (alternate weeks 8.30am-5pm), Tuesday and Friday 8.30am-6pm, Wednesday 9am-6pm, Thursday 9am-5pm, and alternate Saturdays 9.30am-2.30pm.

The practice is staffed by a practice manager, one dentist, a dental therapist/hygienist, a senior dental nurse, two dental nurses, and a trainee dental nurse.

Dr Jane Butterworth is the registered provider. A registered provider is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

Forty-nine people provided feedback about the service. All patients commented positively about the care and treatment they received from the practice. Patients commented that the staff were caring, helpful and respectful. Staff listened to, and took account of their individual needs. Patients reported no difficulty in arranging an appointment and treatment was carried out promptly in a safe and hygienic environment.

Our key findings were:

• Appropriate equipment was available for staff to undertake their duties, and equipment was well maintained.
• The practice recorded and analysed incidents and complaints, and cascaded learning to staff. Information was not available about the next steps if a complainant was not satisfied with the response from the practice.
• The practice confirmed that staff had received safeguarding training and knew the processes to follow to raise concerns.
• Staff had been trained to deal with medical emergencies, and emergency medicines and equipment were available, however the practice did not have an automated external defibrillator. This equipment was obtained after the inspection.
• There were systems in place to reduce and minimise the risks and spread of infection but no evidence was seen of infection control training for staff. Evidence of this was provided after the inspection.
• Patients’ care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with evidence based guidelines and current practice and legislation.
• Patients received clear explanations about their proposed treatment, costs, benefits and risks and were involved in making decisions about treatment.
• Patients were treated with dignity and respect and confidentiality was maintained.
• The appointment system met the needs of patients and waiting times were kept to a minimum.
• The practice had a clear leadership structure, and staff felt involved and worked as a team.
• The practice sought feedback from staff and patients about the services they provided.

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

• Establish whether the practice is in compliance with its legal obligations under the Ionising Radiation Regulations (IRR) 1999.
• Review the practice’s complaints procedure and provide information in relation to escalating complaints.
• Review the implementation of the practice's recruitment policy and procedures to ensure they are operated effectively.