We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 26 July 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

Hatfield Dental is a dental practice situated in the centre of Hatfield, Hertfordshire. They offer general dental treatment to adults and children either on the NHS of funded privately.

The premises is situated in a pedestrianised area of Hatfield in a first floor unit of a commercial area, accessed by an external staircase. For this reason it is not suitable for patients that cannot manage a flight of stairs: however Hatfield Dental has a sister practice a small distance away with ground floor access.

The practice has three treatment rooms, a reception and waiting area, kitchen and office as well as a dedicated decontamination facility. Decontamination is the process by which contaminated dental instruments are cleaned, inspected, sterilised and packaged ready for use again.

The principal dentist is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. 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.

We received feedback from patients who use the practice in the form of comment cards that were made available at the practice before our inspection. 18 patients provided feedback in this way and reported a wholly positive experience at the practice.

Our key findings were

• The practice was visibly clean and clutter free.

• Patients reported that staff were caring and considerate, and were able to put nervous patients at ease.

• Infection control standards met national guidance.

• A new patient appointment could usually be secured within a week, and in an emergency the practice would endeavour to see patients on the day they contacted.

• The practice offered Saturday appointments to allow flexibility to those who had commitments during normal working hours.

• The practice had emergency medicines and equipment in line with national guidelines.

• The clinicians used nationally recognised guidelines in the care and treatment of patients.

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

• Review the practice’s sharps procedures giving due regard to the Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013.

• Review the availability of an interpreter service for patients who do not speak English as their first language.