We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 15 December 2015 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

Kimbolton dental studio is a small practice located in Kimbolton, Cambridgeshire and has one full time dentist and two dental nurses. The practice provides primary dental services to private patients and opens on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays between 8:30am and 5pm and on one Saturday a month for patients that cannot access the services during the week.

We spoke with six patients and reviewed 14 CQC comment cards which had been completed by patients prior to the inspection. All the comments reflected positively on the staff and the services provided. Patients commented that the practice was clean and hygienic, they found it easy to book an appointment and they found the quality of the dentistry to be good. They said explanations were clear and that the staff were kind, caring and reassuring.

Our key findings were:

• The practice recorded and analysed significant events and complaints and cascaded learning to staff.
• Where mistakes had been made there was a policy that patients were notified about the outcome of any investigation and given a suitable apology.
• Staff had received safeguarding and whistleblowing training and knew the processes to follow to raise any concerns.
• There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of patients.
• Staff had been trained to handle emergencies; appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were readily available.
• Infection control procedures were robust and the practice followed published guidance on the majority of occasions, however, there were minor areas for improvement.
• Patient care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with evidence based guidelines, best practice and current legislation.
• Patients received clear explanations about their proposed treatment, costs, benefits and risks and were involved in making decisions about it.
• Patients were treated with dignity and respect and confidentiality was maintained.
• The appointment system met the needs of patients and waiting times were kept to a minimum.
• Medical questionnaires were completed by patients prior to treatment being conducted and repeated every six months.

We spoke with two people during our inspection on 03 September 2013 and they told us that they were happy with the treatment they received. One person told us: “I have been coming so long it’s like family now. I am more than happy with the care I get”.

Care and treatment records were up to date and reflected each time a person had attended the practice for treatment.

Safeguarding policies to protect children and vulnerable adults were in place and staff had undertaken safeguarding training.

Cleanliness and infection prevention was well managed and staff had undertaken appropriate training. This ensured that staff were competent to keep people and themselves safe from exposure to the risks of cross infection.

The practice had an effective system in place to deal with complaints that people might raise.