We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 30 June 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 this practice was providing safe treatment and care in accordance with the relevant regulations .

Are services effective?

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

Are services caring?

We found this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

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

Are services well-led?

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

Our key findings were:

• The practice had systems and processes in place which ensured patients were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
• Patients’ care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes, promoted a good quality of life and was based on the best available evidence.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Services were organised so that they meet patients’ needs.
• The leadership, management and governance of the organisation assured the delivery of high-quality, patient centred treatment and care, supported learning and innovation, and promoted an open and fair culture.

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

• Ensure quality assurance processes are in place to ensure policies are appropriately updated.

During our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service. People spoken with were happy with how the service was provided overall. One person told us “fine, no problem at all, I am quite happy with the practice”. They told us they had recommended it to others. People told us they thought staff were helpful and polite when they phoned and visited the practice. Also, they were confident in the treatment provided by the dental staff. One person said “he’s (the dentist) what you want from a dentist, he’s great, I really like him”.

People told us they could express their views and were given appropriate support and information for their treatment choices. The provider told us each person was seen by the treatment co-ordinator, who was a qualified dental nurse, who discussed the treatment available in full detail. One person said “they are very thorough, I felt fully informed of my treatment”.

We spoke with a dentist, hygienist and two dental nurses who were employed by the service. Dental staff had a good understanding of their responsibility in protecting vulnerable adults and children from abuse.

We saw staff followed infection control guidance to ensure people using the service were protected from the risk of acquiring an infection.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.