We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 13 June 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

A R Brosgill – Pannal is a NHS and private dental practice which offers private dental payment plans. The practice is located in the centre of Pannal, North Yorkshire with car parking close by. The practice has two treatment rooms over two floors, a reception area, a waiting room, a decontamination room, a central office and staff facilities.

There are three dentists (the principal and two associates dentists), two dental hygiene therapists, three dental nurses (one of which is a trainee), a practice manager and an assistant practice manager.

The practice is open:

Monday – Friday 09:00 – 12:30 13:30 – 17:45.

The Principal dentist is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

On the day of inspection we received 48 CQC comment cards providing feedback and spoke with three patients. The patients who provided feedback were very positive about the care and attention to treatment they received at the practice. They told us they were involved in all aspects of their care and found the staff to be a wonderful team who are professional, pleasant and polite. Patients commented they could access emergency care easily and they were treated with dignity and respect in a clean and tidy environment.

Our key findings were:

• Staff had received safeguarding training, knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to report it. They had very good systems in place to work closely and share information with the local safeguarding team.
• There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of patients.
• Staff had been trained to manage medical emergencies.
• Patient care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with evidence based guidelines, best practice and current regulations.
• Patients received clear explanations about their proposed treatment, costs, benefits and risks and were involved in making decisions about it.
• Patients were treated with dignity and respect and confidentiality was maintained.
• There was a complaints system in place. Staff recorded complaints and cascaded learning to staff.
• The governance systems were effective.
• The practice sought feedback from staff and patients about the services.

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

• Review the practice’s protocol for receiving, sharing and acknowledging alerts by email from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK’s regulator of medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion, responsible for ensuring their safety, quality and effectiveness.
• Review the weekly check protocol for the medical emergency drugs and equipment to ensure all equipment is in date and the recommended type.
• Review the practice’s protocol for undertaking audits of X-rays at regular intervals to help improve the quality of service. The practice should also ensure all audits have documented learning points so the resulting improvements can be demonstrated and they follow the NPRB guidelines.

To help us understand the experiences of people using the service, we spoke with people who had attended the surgery at the time of our inspection.

We spoke with people in private at the practice address. Everyone we spoke with said that they were treated with respect and kindness. They said they gave agreement for their treatment and they had their treatment options fully explained to them. People told us they were supported to make decisions and choices regarding their care and treatment. One person said, “He explains everything in detail, he is so patient.” Another said, “He is explicit and gives options.”

People told us they did not have to wait too long for appointments and that they are always welcomed in a friendly manner.

People commented that they thought the surgery and practice building were clean. One person said, “It is always clean.”

We were told by the people we spoke with at this inspection they felt safe and relaxed when receiving treatment. One person said, “He is the best dentist I have ever had. He makes sure I am relaxed before I sit in the chair”

People told us that they had not had any need to complain; but if necessary they would speak either to the dentist or the nurses.