Beech House Dental Surgery

Updated 26 October 2016

The inspection was carried out on 10 October 2016 by a CQC inspector and a dental specialist advisor. We reviewed information received from the provider prior to the inspection.

During our inspection visit, we reviewed policy documents and staff training and recruitment records. We conducted a tour of the practice and looked at the storage arrangements for emergency medicines and equipment. We were shown the decontamination procedures for dental instruments and the systems that supported the patient dental care records.

We spoke to the practice staff that were available on the day of our visit, this included the provider (principal dentist and owner), dentists, dental hygienist and the assistant practice manager.

We reviewed 19 Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards that had been completed by patients in the two weeks prior to our inspection. All the comments were positive.

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?

This informed our view of the care provided and the management of the practice.

Updated 26 October 2016

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 10 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

Beech House Dental Practice provides private treatment for both adults and children. The practice is based in a converted residential premises in Cobham, a town situated in Surrey. The practice has four dental treatment rooms. All of which are based on the ground floor and a separate decontamination room used for cleaning, sterilising and packing dental instruments.

The practice’s opening hours are 8am to 5pm from Monday to Friday.

The provider employs six dentists, two dental hygienists, four registered dental nurses, five receptionists and two part-time practice managers. The dental team worked various part-time hours to accommodate flexible working depending on the need.

The practice owner is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We reviewed 19 Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards that had been completed by patients in the two weeks prior to our inspection. Patients had commented through the CQC comment cards; the practice was clean, dental team were respectful, friendly, professional and the dentist put patients at ease when they arrive anxious and nervous.

Our key findings were:

• There was an induction programme for staff to follow which ensured they were skilled and competent in delivering safe and effective care and support to patients.
• The practice ensured staff maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients.
• There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We found the treatment rooms and equipment were visibly clean.
• There were systems in place to check equipment had been serviced regularly, including the dental air compressor, autoclaves, fire extinguishers and the X-ray equipment.

• We found the dentist regularly assessed each patient’s gum health and took X-rays at appropriate intervals.

• The practice kept up to date with current guidelines when considering the care and treatment needs of patients.

• Staff had been trained to handle emergencies and appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were readily available.
• Patients received clear explanations about their proposed treatment, and its costs, benefits and risks and were involved in making decisions about it.
• 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.
• There was an effective complaints system and the practice was open and transparent with patients if a mistake had been made.
• Staff demonstrated knowledge of the practice whistleblowing policy and were confident they would raise a concern about another staff member’s performance if it was necessary.

• At our visit we observed staff were kind, caring and very welcoming.

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

• Consider providing an annual statement in relation to infection prevention control required under The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice about the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.
• Review the supply of antibiotics for patients in line with current secondary prescribing guidelines published by the British Pharmaceutical Society.
• Consider carrying out a risk assessment in relation to the numbers of staff accessing the decontamination area at any one time.