Bupa Dental Care Rise Park

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 19 October 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 is located on the ground floor of premises in the rise Park area of Nottingham. The practice provides a mixture of NHS and private dental treatments (50/50). There are a number of free car parks. There are four treatment rooms all of which are located on the ground floor.

The practice provides regulated dental services to both adults and children. Services provided include general dentistry, dental hygiene, crowns and bridges, and root canal treatment.

The practice’s opening hours are – Monday to Friday: 9 am to 5:30 pm.

Access for urgent treatment outside of opening hours is by telephoning the practice and following the instructions on the answerphone message or by telephoning the 111 NHS service.

The principal dentist 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.

The practice has seven dentists; one dental hygienist; seven qualified dental nurses; Dental nurses also worked on the reception desk when required.

Before the inspection we sent Care Quality Commission comments cards to the practice for patients to complete to tell us about their experience of the practice and during the inspection we spoke with patients. We received feedback from 29 patients who provided a positive view of the services the practice provides. All of the patients commented that the quality of care was good.

Our key findings were:

• The premises were visibly clean and there were systems and processes in place to maintain the cleanliness.
• Records showed there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of patients.
• Patients commented they had no problem getting an appointment that suited their needs.
• Patients were able to access emergency treatment when they were in pain.
• Patients provided positive feedback about their experiences at the practice. Patients said they were treated with dignity and respect; and the dentist involved them in discussions about treatment options and answered questions.
• Patients’ confidentiality was protected.
• There were systems to record accidents, significant events and complaints, and where learning points were identified these were shared with staff.
• The records showed that apologies had been given for any concerns or upset that patients had experienced at the practice.
• Dentists were not always using rubber dams when completing root canal treatments, and did not always record this in the dental care records.
• The practice mostly followed the relevant guidance from the Department of Health's: ‘Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05) for infection control with regard to cleaning and sterilizing dental instruments. However regular six monthly infection control audits had not been completed and monitoring of the water temperature during manual cleaning of dental instruments.
• There was a whistleblowing policy accessible to all staff, who were aware of procedures to follow if they had any concerns.
• The arrangements for staff to receive an annual appraisal were not robust.
• The practice had the necessary equipment for staff to deal with medical emergencies, and staff had been trained how to use that equipment. This included an automated external defibrillator, oxygen and emergency medicines.

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

• Review the practice’s protocols for the use of rubber dam for root canal treatment giving due regard to guidelines issued by the British Endodontic Society.

• Review the practice’s infection control procedures and protocols giving due regard to guidelines issued by the Department of Health - Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices and The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice about the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

• Review the training, learning and development needs of individual staff members and have an effective process established for the on-going assessment and supervision of all staff.