Mydentist - Whitehorse Street - Baldock Also known as my dentist

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 18 January 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

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 were six dentists and two dental hygienists who provided both NHS and private dental care. The practice employed four trained dental nurses, two trainee dental nurses), and two receptionists. In addition a cleaner with a dental nurse background was employed.

The two storey practice, which has recently been refurbished, was located in the high street and accessible to wheelchair users. The practice had one treatment room, reception and a toilet all accessible to disabled patients on the ground floor. There were a further two treatment rooms, staff room, waiting room, staff toilets, storage and a decontamination room for cleaning, sterilising, and packing dental instruments located on the first floor. There was a car park, with designated disabled parking spaces at the rear of the building.

We received feedback from 15 patients during the inspection process. We received positive comments about the cleanliness of the premises, the empathy and responsiveness of staff, and the quality of treatment provided.

Four 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. Patients commented that the service they received was good, and that they were always clear about the costs involved in their treatment.

Our key findings were:

• 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.
• Patients received clear explanations about their proposed treatment, costs, benefits, and risks and were involved in making decisions about them.
• 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 staff felt involved and worked as a team.
• Robust systems, and risk assessments, were in place to give oversight and ensure compliance with regulations.
• Regular audits were performed to manage performance, identify risks, mitigate, and drive improvements.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should

• Review the understanding of staff and the practice policy application in relation to obtaining consent from young patients seeking treatment.