We carried out this announced inspection on 24 January 2018 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

Omid Sobhani Dental Practice is located in Westminster and provides private treatment to patients of all ages.

The dental team includes seven dentists ( three main dentists and four visiting specialists), three dental nurses, a dental hygienist/ therapist, a practice manager and a clinical advisor.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal dentist there. They have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

On the day of inspection we collected 23 CQC comment cards filled in by patients and spoke with three other patients. This information gave us a positive view of the practice.

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

The practice is open: 9.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday.

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. However, improvements were required in regards to ensuring the policy also covered vulnerable adults.
• 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 practice's safeguarding policy and ensure the policy refers to both adult and children.
• Review the practices’ current Legionella risk assessment and implement the required actions taking into account guidelines issued by the Department of Health - Health Technical Memorandum 01-05: Decontamination in primary care dental practices and have regard to The Health and Social Care Act 2008: ‘Code of Practice about the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.’

People who use the service were treated with consideration by a staff team that they described as “respectful”. They told us they were provided with sufficient information to make decisions about their treatment.

People commented on the skill and gentleness of the dentist, one person told us “I was waiting for pain but it never came”. Records showed people’s needs were appropriately assessed and their treatment plan agreed.

People told us they were reassured by the level of cleanliness in the service, which had been refurbished to a high standard. Staff understood their professional responsibilities and adhered to infection control protocols. They demonstrated how they worked to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

People were protected because the service took steps to ensure staff were recruited properly. We inspected records that showed staff were appropriately qualified, belonged to the relevant professional body and had been safely recruited.

The provider had a system to monitor the effectiveness and quality of service it provided to people. We read the raw data of questionnaires completed by people who had previously received treatment and noted that they rated the service highly.