The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Glebe House Dental Care

Glebe House, Christchurch Road, Virginia Water, Surrey, GU25 4PT (01344) 844507

Provided and run by:
Dr Chris Van Gelderen

All Inspections

11 August 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced comprehensive inspection on 11 August 2022 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 practice was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a Care Quality Commission, (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:

  • The dental clinic was visibly clean and well-maintained.
  • The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with medical emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff.
  • Safeguarding processes were in place and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect and staff took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • Staff provided preventive care and supported patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked as a team.
  • Staff and patients were asked for feedback about the services provided.
  • Complaints were dealt with positively and efficiently.
  • The dental clinic had information governance arrangements.
  • There was effective leadership; however, improvements could be made to the auditing protocols to drive continued improvement.
  • The practice had staff recruitment procedures which reflected current legislation; however, improvements could be made to ensure the provider has oversight of staff training in relation to conscious sedation to ensure training is up to date and carried out as required.

Background

Glebe House Dental Care is in Virginia Water in Surrey and provides private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

There is level access to the practice for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. The practice is near local transport links and car parking spaces are available at the practice. The practice has made reasonable adjustments to support patients with additional needs, for example the availability of information in large print if required.

The dental team includes two dentists, one visiting specialist in periodontics, one dental nurse and one dental nurse/receptionist. The practice has two treatment rooms.

During the inspection we spoke with both dentists, the dental nurse and the dental nurse/receptionist. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday and Wednesday from 9am to 6pm

Tuesday, Thursday and Friday from 8.30am to 5pm

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

  • Take action to ensure that all dental staff who assist in conscious sedation have the appropriate training and skills to carry out the role, taking into account guidelines published by The Intercollegiate Advisory Committee on Sedation in Dentistry in the document 'Standards for Conscious Sedation in the Provision of Dental Care 2015'. In particular in relation to Immediate Life Support training.
  • Take action to ensure audits of radiography and infection prevention and control are undertaken at recommended intervals to improve the quality of the service. Also, implement audits for prescribing of antibiotic medicines taking into account the guidance provided by the College of General Dentistry.
  • Improve the practice's systems for checking and monitoring equipment taking into account relevant guidance and ensure that all equipment is well maintained. In particular relating to the annual gas safety certification and the emergency lighting.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

During our previous inspection the provider could not find evidence to show us that staff had completed safeguarding training and had not made information available about safeguarding to patients. We found that the provider had not carried out appropriate pre-employment checks on staff.

During this review, we saw that staff had completed training in adult and child protection. The provider told us that they had made safeguarding information available in the waiting room for patients.

We saw that the provider had carried out appropriate checks for staff such as criminal records checks and professional registration.

11 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

On the day of our inspection there was one surgery in use and patients were seen by one of the two dentists at the practice. We spoke with two members of staff and one dentist. We did not speak directly with any patients during this inspection, however, patients views were obtained at our previous inspection last year.

Staff who were on duty were very welcoming and we saw that they were helpful and treated patients with respect.

We spoke to staff who told us that they knew what to do if they had a safeguarding concern and that they would report it to one of the dentists. We saw that some training in adult safeguarding had taken place. However, we noted that not all staff had completed this training, and no staff had undertaken safeguarding children training.

The practice looked clean and well organised. We saw that systems were in place that monitored infection control within the practice.

We looked at staff records and found that there were not adequate processes in place before staff commenced employment at the practice. However, we were told that staff and their work history and personal circumstances were well known to the practice at the time of their employment.

We saw an example of a complaint and noted that it had been dealt with appropriately. We saw examples of surveys and comments and noted that these were all positive. Some people had stated 'I have no complaints'.

21 March and 15 June 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke to a patient, and carried out more detailed phone interviews with four other patients. We were told that appointments were available at convenient times, and that staff provided sufficient information about the treatment and care on offer. Patients told us that staff were respectful towards them and behaved in a professional manner.

Patients told us they felt safe being treated at this practice, and none of those we spoke to had any complaints. Whilst patients did not seem to be aware of the formal complaints procedure, they said they would raise any concerns with either the dentist or the receptionist.

Patients were asked to comment on the cleanliness and comfort of the environment and all those we spoke to said the environment was clean. Patients we spoke to confirmed that staff washed their hands, wore protective clothing, and offered protective equipment to patients.