The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Hendford Dental Practice

30 Hendford, Yeovil, Somerset, BA20 1TG (01935) 433337

Provided and run by:
Mr. Peter Froud

All Inspections

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our inspection in February 2014 we found the practice non compliant as they did not have effective systems to monitor their service and staff had not received training to enable them to understand their responsibilities in respect of safeguarding vulnerable adults.

We asked the provider to give us evidence of the above being implemented in the practice. From this evidence we are satisfied the service is now compliant.

28 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who attended appointments during our visit. One person we spoke with told us they were attending their first appointment. They said they found it easy to get an appointment and had been treated well when they contacted the practice.

Others we spoke with said they found staff to be 'always very helpful and friendly' and "courteous, professional and friendly'. They told us the dentist always explained treatment options to them and one person added 'the dentist has never hurt me'. People said they felt 'safe' in the practice confirming that this was because of 'the relaxed atmosphere', how the dentist was 'forthcoming with information!' and because they had previous 'good experiences'.

There was a range of information available to people regarding the services provided. This included the costs for treatment and how people could complain if they were unhappy about any aspect of their treatment.

People were given explanations of the treatment the dentist proposed and they were asked to give consent. The consent policy outlined how people could take their time and consider the treatment options. Records showed that people had given consent and gave detail of the treatment they had chosen.

There were arrangements in place to respond to medical emergencies and staff had been trained in this and other relevant subject related to the provision of dental care.

Training was provided in child protection but only one member of staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. There was information available to guide staff should they have suspicions that a child or vulnerable adult was being abused.

There were good arrangements in place for ensuring there was minimum risk of the spread of infection. However, the provider had not audited these at the recommended frequency.

Other audits were carried out but these were not recent. There was assessment of risks within the practice.