The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

The Dental Room Belford

54B High Street, Belford, Northumberland, NE70 7NJ (01668) 213744

Provided and run by:
Belford Dental Practice Limited

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

All Inspections

26 July 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

 

We undertook a focused inspection of Belford Dental Practice on 26 July 2018. This inspection was carried out to review in detail the actions taken by the registered provider to improve the quality of care and to confirm that the practice was now meeting legal requirements.

The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who had remote access to a specialist dental adviser.

We undertook a comprehensive inspection of Belford Dental Practice on 28 March 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We found the registered provider was not providing safe and well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can read our report of that inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Belford Dental Practice on our website www.cqc.org.uk.

When one or more of the five questions are not met we require the service to make improvements and send us an action plan. We then inspect again after a reasonable interval, focusing on the areas where improvement was required.

As part of this inspection we asked:

• Is it safe?

• Is it well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

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

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breach we found at our inspection on 28 March 2018.

Are services well-led?

We found this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breach we found at our inspection on 28 March 2018.

Background

Belford Dental Practice is in Belford, Northumberland and provides private treatment to adults and children. A portable ramp is available for people who use wheelchairs and pushchairs. On street parking is available near the practice.

The dental team includes one dentist, one dental nurse and one receptionist. The practice has one treatment room.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal dentist there. They have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

During the inspection we spoke with the dentist, the dental nurse and the receptionist. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday 9am to 6:30pm

Tuesday 9am to 4pm

Wednesday 9am to 5pm

Thursday 9am to 5pm

Friday 9am to 1pm

Our key findings were:

  • Medicines and life-saving equipment were available in accordance with national guidance. The practice had purchased an Automated External Defibrillator.
  • The practice had effective systems to help them manage risks associated with fire, legionella and other areas.
  • The provider had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • The practice staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002.
  • Staff had reviewed their protocols and procedures for use of X-ray equipment giving due regard to Guidance Notes for Dental Practitioners on the Safe use of X-ray Equipment by the National Radiological Protection Board.
  • The practice had fully assessed the needs of all population groups in line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010; a disability discrimination assessment was undertaken for the premises.
  • Staff were aware of how to access an interpreter service for patients who do not speak English as their first language.
  • The dental team was familiar with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as well as other recent guidance relating to dentistry.

28 March 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on 28 March 2018 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 CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

We carried out this inspection in response to information that was shared with us from the NHS England area team.

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

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

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

Background

Belford Dental Practice is in Belford, Northumberland and provides private treatment to adults and children.

A portable ramp is available for people who use wheelchairs and pushchairs. On street parking is available near the practice.

The dental team includes one dentist, one dental nurse and one receptionist. The practice has one treatment room.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal dentist there. They have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

On the day of inspection, we collected 17 CQC comment cards filled in by patients. This information gave us a positive view of the practice.

During the inspection we spoke with the dentist and the dental nurse. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday 9am to 6:30pm

Tuesday 9am to 4pm

Wednesday 9am to 5pm

Thursday 9am to 5pm

Friday 9am to 1pm

Our key findings were:

  • The practice was clean and well maintained.
  • The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Improvements were needed to the medicines and life-saving equipment were available in accordance to national guidance. The practice did not have appropriate access to an Automated External Defibrillator.
  • The practice did not have effective systems to help them manage risk.
  • The practice had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The practice did not have thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • The appointment system met patients’ needs.
  • The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The practice had systems to deal with complaints positively and efficiently.

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed.

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

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

  • Review its responsibilities as regards to the Control of Substance Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002 and, ensure all documentation is up to date and staff understand how to minimise risks associated with the use of and handling of these substances.
  • Review the protocols and procedures for use of X-ray equipment giving due regard to guidance notes on the Safe use of X-ray Equipment.
  • Review its responsibilities to the needs of people with a disability and the requirements of the equality Act 2010 and ensure a Disability Discrimination Act assessment is undertaken for the premises.
  • Review the availability of an interpreter service for patients who do not speak English as their first language.
  • Review staff awareness of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensure all staff are aware of their responsibilities under the Act as it relates to their role.

23 June 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak to patients during this inspection as the warning notice and compliance actions we had previously set concerned the arrangements for supporting staff, patient related record keeping, and quality assurance processes. During our inspection we found the provider had taken action to comply with the warning notice and compliance actions we set following previous inspection visits.

We found the provider had improved the quality of records kept about patient care and treatment and about the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) undertaken by staff working at the practice. Clinical audits had been carried out to improve patient care and checks had been made to ensure the environment was clean and suitably maintained. Routine x-rays had been completed where appropriate and all of these had been justified, recorded and graded in line with the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R) 2000. We found that patients' records contained more information about the treatment they received.

14 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to find out whether improvements had been made regarding infection control and records. However, during our inspection, we identified concerns with care and welfare so we also inspected this regulation.

We did not speak with patients during the course of our inspection because the practice was closed on the afternoon of our visit. In order to find out about patients' care and treatment, we looked at dental records and spoke with the dentist who owned the practice. We found that patients' care and treatment did not always comply with relevant research and guidance. We had concerns that X-rays known as radiographs were not always taken when appropriate, which could mean that certain oral conditions which needed treatment might be missed.

We looked at the maintenance of records. We found that improvements had been made in certain areas. Checks of the emergency drugs and equipment were now documented. The dentist and dental nurse had documentation to confirm that they were immune against the virus Hepatitis B. However, we found that patients' dental treatment records, certain staff records and other records which related to the management of the service were not always accurate or fit for purpose and some could not always be located promptly.

28 June and 5 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people to find out their opinions about the service they received at the dental practice. One person informed us, 'I've been to a few dentists but this was top of the list.'

The provider (dentist) had taken over the practice a year ago. It was a small dental surgery which consisted of the provider, dental nurse and receptionist.

People told us they were involved in planning their treatment since they were given the information they needed and possible options for treatment. We concluded that people who used the service were provided with information about care and treatment available at the practice.

People were complimentary about the treatment they had received. People described the treatment as 'superb' and 'excellent.' We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found that effective systems were not fully in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

Staff informed us that they were appropriately trained; however we found that suitable appraisal and supervision arrangements were not fully in place.

We concluded that the provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

We found that records relevant to staffing and the management of the service were not always accurate and fit for purpose.