This inspection was a follow up to an inspection in July 2013 when we had found some of the essential standards of quality and safety had not been met. This inspection was to check whether improvements had been made.

We found there was appropriate information about the practice and what it offers which was readily available and could support patients in their care or treatment.

We found that the service had developed an auditing system to monitor standards of infection control. There was now an identified lead for the infection control and policies and procedures had been updated.

Previously we had found there was an absence of effective systems such as key policy and procedures, checks and audits carried out, to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that patients received, including an effective complaints procedure. The service had addressed these issues so that the service was better monitored to ensure standards were maintained.

During our inspection visit we spoke with patients who had or were about to receive treatment. Patients told us they were happy with the service they received. Patients advised us the staff were always helpful, polite, respectful and sensitive towards them and they said they had confidence in the staff's skills and expertise.

We found staff were trained and supported to carry out their work at the surgery. Staff we spoke with said the practice was good to work for.

A patient told us, “Everybody is pleasant and helpful and everything is explained by the dentist. “ Patients told us they were never rushed with their appointment and their examination was conducted in private. Patients told us their treatment options were explained to them, so they were able to make informed decisions about what treatments were best for them and which they would prefer. We found, however, a lack of formal policy in place regarding written consent for procedures and treatment undertaken.

We found there was a lack of appropriate information about the practice and what it offers readily available to support patients in their care or treatment.

Although we found standards of environmental hygiene on the inspection safe, there was a risk of patients not being fully protected from the risk of infection because there was no regular auditing process in place to ensure ongoing monitoring. There was no identified lead for infection control and a lack of up to date reference material in the form of policies and procedures for the practice.

Overall there was an absence of effective systems such as key policy and procedures, checks and audits carried out, to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that patients received. This included a lack of an effective complaints procedure. This presented as a risk as any failings or areas that need improvement may not be identified.