We carried out this announced inspection on 13 April 2017 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.

We told the NHS England area team and Healthwatch that we were inspecting the practice. They did not provide any information.

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

Edward House Dental Studio is in Beverley and provides NHS and private treatment to adults and children.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and pushchairs at the rear of the building. Car parking spaces are available near the practice.

The dental team includes four dentists, eight dental nurses (three are trainees), four dental hygienist therapists, a receptionist and a practice manager. The practice has four treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by a company and as a condition of registration must have a person registered with the Care Quality Commission as the registered manager. Registered managers have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run. The registered manager at Edward House Dental Studio was the principal dentist.

On the day of inspection we collected 12 CQC comment cards filled in by patients and spoke with one other patient. This information gave us a positive view of the practice.

During the inspection we spoke with two dentists, five dental nurses, a receptionist and the practice manager. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday 8:30am – 7pm

Tuesday, Wednesday 8:30am – 5:30pm

Thursday 8:30am – 6pm

Friday 8:30am - 5pm

Our key findings were:

• The practice was clean and well maintained.
• The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
• Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. 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.
• Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
• The appointment system met patients’ needs.
• The practice had effective leadership. 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.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

• Review the reporting of significant events and staff awareness.
• Review the flow of the decontamination room and review the bagging of instruments.
• Review the improvements that could be made to the storage of sedation medicines.

We spoke with four patients who attended the practice for treatment, a principal dentist, the practice manager, dental nurses and a receptionist/dental nurse as part of this inspection.

Patients told us that their treatment options were explained to them so that they were able to make an informed choice. We saw that patient notes included information about any allergies or medical conditions, and details of the examination and treatment they had received each time they attended the practice.

The premises had been adapted to make them suitable for people with mobility problems. This included easy access to the premises and the provision of disabled toilet facilities.

We saw that the practice was clean and hygienic; one person told us, “The premises are spotless”. The decontamination of instruments was robust, promoting the control of infection.

Staff received appropriate training and dental nurses told us that they were well supported by the practice. We saw evidence that registration with professional bodies had been retained and that continuing professional development (CPD) had been achieved.

Patients had the opportunity to comment on the care they received. All of the patients that we spoke with gave positive feedback. One person said, “I have every confidence in my dentist; they are highly professional. I would have no hesitation in speaking to them if I had a problem”.