The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Smilepod - Moorgate

24 Chiswell Street, London, EC1Y 4TY (020) 7256 5521

Provided and run by:
Smile Pod Limited

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

All Inspections

25 July 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced comprehensive inspection on 25 July 2023 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 advisor.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following 5 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 appeared 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 manage risks for patients, staff, equipment and the premises.
  • Safeguarding processes were in place and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • The practice had staff recruitment procedures which reflected current legislation.
  • Clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect. Staff took care to protect patients’ privacy and personal information.
  • Staff provided preventive care and supported patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system worked efficiently to respond to patients’ needs.
  • The frequency of appointments was agreed between the dentist and the patient, giving due regard to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.
  • There was effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement.
  • Staff felt involved, 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 practice had information governance arrangements.

Background

Smilepod - Moorgate is part of Smile Pod Limited, a group dental provider.

The practice is in the London Borough of Islington and provides private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

The practice is located within an office complex and there is step free access to the practice for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. Car parking spaces, including dedicated parking for disabled people, are available near the practice. The practice has made reasonable adjustments to support patients with access requirements.

The dental team includes 6 dentists (including a specialist endodontist and an oral surgeon specialist), 2 dental hygienists, 1 dental nurse, 1 trainee dental nurse and a trainee practice manager. The dental nurses cover receptionist duties. The practices within this group are supported by a clinical director. The practice has 4 treatment rooms.

During the inspection we spoke with 1 dentist, 1 dental hygienist, the trainee dental nurse, the interim practice manager and the clinical director. We looked at practice policies, procedures and other records to assess how the service is managed.

The practice is open between 9am and 6pm on Mondays to Fridays.

25 June 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our inspection on 27 January 2014 we were concerned that we were not able to verify with the provider that pre-employment checks had been undertaken to ensure that staff were of a suitable character to carry out their roles because references and CV's were not available to confirm this on the day of inspection.

We were also concerned that medical histories were not easily accessible for dentists when carrying out consultations. This meant there was a risk to people using the service as they were being treated without the provider knowing their medical conditions or identifying any potential risk to treatment.

We asked the provider to take action.

At the follow up inspection we found evidence that all pre-employment checks had been carried out for all employees before appointed by the provider, and that all medical histories had been scanned onto the computer system and were updated by the dentist at the time of appointment making the information readily available at the time of consultation.

27 January 2014

During a routine inspection

Six dentists worked at the practice at different times during the week supported by two dental nurses, one of whom was also the practice manager. On the day of our visit there were no dentists working at the practice and therefore no patients being seen. However we spoke to the two dental nurses and observed staff dealing with people calling in to make enquiries and we spoke with five patients who had used the service recently. The people we spoke to were happy with the treatment provided. For example, one person said 'I was perfectly happy with the treatment provided.' Another told us 'They do a really good job.'

We saw that people's views and choices about their treatment were respected and treatment was provided in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

In respect of measures to prevent and control the spread of infection we noted that the decontamination of instruments used by the dentists was undertaken by another Smile Pod practice and not carried out on the premises of this service. We saw that staff at this practice had sufficient procedures in place to prevent and control the spread of infection within the practice.

We found that people were treated by staff who were qualified to do so although there was insufficient information available at the practice to corroborate that all were of a suitable character.

We saw that the practice had an effective complaints system in place and that any concerns people expressed were dealt with promptly and effectively.

Whilst we were at the practice we noticed that a large number of the records of people's medical histories were not readily accessible for use in consultations.