We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 29 March 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

Burgate dental practice is a dental practice located in Canterbury Kent. The premises are situated on the ground and first floors. The treatment room is on the ground floor as is the reception area and waiting room. Upstairs are a staff room / kitchen, a dedicated decontamination room and a toilet.

The practice provides private dental services to adults and children. The practice offers a range of services including routine examinations and treatment, veneers, crowns and bridges and implants.

There is a principal dentist (who is also the owner), two dental hygienists, two dental nurses and a practice manager. The practice had engaged a consultant over the last year to help to professionalise the administration of the business.

The practice opening hours are Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday 9am to 5pm.

The principal dentist is the registered provider and has legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the practice is run.

The inspection took place over one day and was carried out by a CQC inspector.

Sixteen patients completed CQC comments cards about the service. Patients were positive about the care they received from the practice. They were complimentary about the sympathetic attitude of the staff. Several comments mentioned that the practice equipment and treatments were very up to date.

Our key findings were:

• There were effective systems to reduce and minimise the risk and spread of infection.
• The practice had effective safeguarding processes and staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children living in vulnerable circumstances.
• Equipment, such as the air compressor, X-ray units and autoclave (steriliser), were checked for effectiveness and had been regularly serviced.
• The practice had clear procedures for managing comments, concerns or complaints.
• Patients said that they felt they were listened to and that they received good care from a helpful and sympathetic team.
• Staff understood the importance of obtaining informed consent prior to treatment. And showed an awareness of the needs of higher-risk groups, including young people and those with impaired decision-making capacity.
• Staff maintained the necessary skills and competences to support the needs of patients.
• Staff were well supported and were committed to providing a quality service to their patients.
• Staff had received training appropriate to their role and were supported in their continued professional development.

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

Formally record the annual appraisals that were carried out with staff.