The Mary Jones Dental Practice

Updated 12 November 2015

We carried out an announced, comprehensive inspection on 08 October 2015. The inspection took place over one day. The inspection was led by a CQC inspector. They were accompanied by a dental specialist advisor.

We reviewed information received from the provider prior to the inspection. During our inspection visit we reviewed policy documents and spoke with four members of staff, including the principal dentist. We conducted a tour of the practice and looked at the storage arrangements for emergency medicines and equipment. We asked one of the dental nurses to demonstrate how they carried out decontamination procedures of dental instruments.

Nine people provided feedback about the service. Patients were positive about the care they received from the practice. They were complimentary about the friendly and caring attitude of the dental staff.

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 therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 12 November 2015

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 08 October 2015 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 Mary Jones Dental Practice is located in the London Borough of Bromley. The premises are laid out over the ground floor of a converted residential building. There are two treatment rooms, a dedicated decontamination room, waiting room with reception area, and toilet.

The practice provides private dental services for adults and children. The practice offers a range of dental services including routine examinations and treatment, veneers, crowns and bridges, root canal treatments and oral hygiene.

The staff structure of the practice is comprised of a principal dentist (who is also the owner), four associate dentists, a hygienist, and three dental nurses who also work as receptionists.

The practice opening hours are from 9.00 am to 6.00pm on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, from 9.00am to 8pm on Tuesday and from 9.00am to 1.00pm on Friday.

The principal dentist is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual. 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 inspection took place over one day and was carried out by a CQC inspector and a dental specialist advisor.

Nine people provided feedback about the service. Patients were positive about the care they received from the practice. They were complimentary about the friendly and caring attitude of the dental staff.

Our key findings were:

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned in line with current guidance such as from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

• There were effective systems in place to reduce and minimise the risk and spread of infection, although further checks were needed to monitor for the risk of Legionella.

• The practice had effective safeguarding processes in place and staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children living in vulnerable circumstances.

• Equipment, such as the air compressor, autoclave (steriliser), fire extinguishers, and X-ray equipment had all been checked for effectiveness and had been regularly serviced.

• Staff knew how to report incidents and how to record details of these so that the practice could use this information for shared learning.

• Patients indicated that they felt they were listened to and that they received good care from a helpful and caring practice team.

• The principal dentist had a clear vision for the practice and staff told us they were well supported by the management team.

• Governance arrangements and audits were used effectively for monitoring the quality and safety of the services, although additional auditing, for example, of dental care records, could be used to monitor performance and drive improvements.

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

• Monitor and record the fridge temperature to ensure that medicines are being stored in line with the manufacturer’s guidance.

• Review and embed the use of staff appraisals as part of a system for identifying staff concerns and ensuring that staff remain skilled and competent in their role.

• Review audit protocols to ensure audits of dental care records are undertaken at regular intervals and learning points are documented and shared with all relevant staff.