We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 26 January 2017 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

Edgerton Dental Clinic is situated in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. The practice provides dental treatment to adults and children on an NHS or privately funded basis. The services include preventative advice and treatment, routine restorative dental care and dental implants.

The practice has eight surgeries, a decontamination room, two waiting areas and two reception areas. On the ground floor there are five surgeries, a waiting area and a reception area. On the first floor there are three surgeries, a reception area and a waiting area. Wheelchair access is available through the basement and there is a stair lift to the ground floor.

There are seven dentists, four dental hygienists, nine dental nurses, two receptionists and a practice manager.

The opening hours are Monday to Friday from 9:00am to 5:15pm.

One of the principal dentists is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual. 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.

During the inspection we spoke with eight patients who used the service and reviewed 18 completed CQC comment cards. The patients were positive about the care and treatment they received at the practice. Comments included staff were caring, friendly and professional. They also commented the practice was clean and hygienic and the appointment system met their needs.

Our key findings were:

• The practice was visibly clean and uncluttered.
• The practice had systems in place to assess and manage risks to patients and staff including health and safety and the management of medical emergencies.
• Staff were qualified and had received training appropriate to their roles.
• Patients were involved in making decisions about their treatment and were given clear explanations about their proposed treatment including costs, benefits and risks.
• Dental care records showed treatment was planned in line with current best practice guidelines.
• Oral health advice and treatment were provided in-line with the ‘Delivering Better Oral Health’ toolkit (DBOH).
• We observed patients were treated with kindness and respect by staff.
• There was a warm and welcoming feel to the practice.
• Staff ensured there was sufficient time to explain fully the care and treatment they were providing in a way patients understood.
• The practice had a complaints system in place and there was an openness and transparency in how these were dealt with.
• Patients were able to make routine and emergency appointments when needed.
• The governance systems were effective.
• There were clearly defined leadership roles within the practice and staff told us they felt supported, appreciated and comfortable to raise concerns or make suggestions.

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

• Review the practice’s arrangements for receiving and responding to patient safety alerts, recalls and rapid response reports issued from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and through the Central Alerting System (CAS), as well as from other relevant bodies such as, Public Health England (PHE).
• Review the stock control system for antibiotics.
• Review the use of identification tape on instruments and the type of the transport boxes for instruments.

We did not speak with people who use the service. We spoke to the practice manager and they told us that since our last visit three new members of staff had been recruited. They included two associate dentists and one dental nurse.

We spoke with four people who used the service, the principal dentist (the provider) and three members of staff at the practice. People told us they were, “Very happy.” They said the service was “Excellent” and the staff, “Very thorough and professional.”

The people we spoke with told us the dentist always discussed their examination with them and sought their consent before carrying out any treatment. One person said the dentist, “Discusses my treatment with me but it is my decision.”

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in ways which ensured their safety and welfare. The dentist carried out full mouth assessments and offered patients advice on oral hygiene. People’s records were stored electronically and included details of their medical history, current medication and any allergies.

The dental surgery was clean, uncluttered and well maintained. The dental chair, surgery furniture and fittings were of a high standard. Hand washing facilities and antiseptic soaps were in use. The people we spoke with told us the dental surgery always looked very clean.

The dentist did not have effective recruitment procedures and was unable to provide evidence of checks on the suitability of staff employed at the practice.

The dentist had sought people’s views about the service. The majority of people had judged the practice as good or very good. People commented, “Very happy with whole practice performance”, “Always good professional treatment” and “Always explains procedures so I can understand them.”

We did not talk to any patients as part of this inspection.