Archived: The Composite Bonding Company

We carried out this announced focussed inspection on 25 October 2021 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 provider 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 asked the following three questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found this practice was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

The Composite Bonding Company is in Manchester and provides private dental care and treatment for adults.

There is ramp access to the practice for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. Car parking spaces are available near the practice.

The dental team includes a dental hygienist and therapist, a dentist and two dental nurses. The practice has one treatment room.

The practice is owned by a company and as a condition of registration must have a person registered with the CQC as the registered manager. Registered managers 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 registered manager at The Composite Bonding Company is the dental hygienist and therapist.

During the inspection we spoke with the dental hygienist and therapist and two dental nurses. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Tuesday and Wednesday from 10:00am to 8:00pm

Thursday from 8:00am to 5:00pm

Our key findings were:

• The practice appeared to be visibly clean and tidy.
• The provider had infection control procedures. Minor improvements are required to bring these fully in line with nationally recognised guidance.
• Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Not all emergency equipment was available on the day of inspection. These were ordered immediately.
• Improvements could be made to the process for managing the risks associated with the carrying out of the regulated activities. These included the risks associated with Legionella, fire and referring patients to other healthcare providers.
• The provider had safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
• The provider had staff recruitment procedures which reflected current legislation.
• The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
• Staff provided preventive care and supported patients to ensure better oral health.
• Staff felt involved and supported and worked as a team.
• The provider asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
• The provider had information governance arrangements.

We identified regulations the provider was not complying with. They must:

• Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

Full details of the regulation the provider was not meeting are at the end of this report.