We found that patients fully understood what treatments were available and were told the cost of each option before they made their choice. If more complicated procedures were required the dentist wrote to the patient giving them a full explanation of alternatives available.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Medical histories were updated at every appointment and checked by the dentist. Patients told us that staff always made them feel safe and reassured. One person told us, “It’s great, you just feel so calm and relaxed and before you know it it’s all over." Another person said, “Before I came here I used to get so worked up but now I know if it might hurt I get an injection and don’t feel a thing."

We examined the two surgeries and saw that patients were cared for in a hygienic environment which had been designed to minimise the risk of infection.

Staff had been supported to deliver treatment safely and to an appropriate standard because the provider had an effective supervision and training process. Staff told us that there was a real “family atmosphere” amongst the staff and patients which had been nurtured by the approachable manner of the dentists.

The practice had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people experienced. All the patients we spoke with were happy with their care and had recommended the practice to others.

We carried out this announced inspection on 19 March 2019 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.

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 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

Church Lane Dental is in Hungerford and provides private treatment to patients of all ages.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. The practice is not accessible to motor vehicles. Parking is available on the main road at the end of the walkway.

The dental team includes three dentists, four dental nurses, two dental hygienists and a receptionist. The practice has two treatment rooms.

The principal dentist is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual and is legally responsible for making sure that the practice meets the requirements relating to safety and quality of care, as specified in the regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

On the day of our inspection we collected 19 CQC comment cards filled in by patients and obtained the views of six other patients.

During the inspection we spoke with two dentists, two dental nurses and one receptionist.

We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

• Monday 9.00am to 5.00pm
• Tuesday 9.00am to 5.00pm
• Wednesday 8.30am to 4.00pm
• Thursday 9.00am to 5.00pm
• Friday 8.30am to 4.00pm

Our key findings were:

• The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
• The practice had infection control decontamination procedures which reflected published guidance but improvements were needed.
• Staff knew how to deal with medical emergencies
• Improvements were needed to ensure appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
• The practice had systems to help them manage risk.
• The practice had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
• The practice had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
• The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines but improvement was needed to completion of patient records.
• Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
• The practice monitored staff training.
• Improvements were needed to fire and electrical safety management.
• was providing preventive care and supporting patients to ensure better oral health.
• The appointment system met patients’ needs.
• The practice had effective leadership and culture of continuous improvement.
• Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
• The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
• The practice dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
• The practice had suitable information governance arrangements.
• All the shortfalls we identified on our visit have since been addressed.