People explained to us they were happy with the amount of information they received about the practice and about their treatment options. They were complimentary about the way the dentists thoroughly explained the risks and benefits of any treatment and gave them time to discuss the outcome they wanted.

People received treatment that was safe and based on an holistic assessment of their individual requirements. People were able to get appointments when they needed them. The practice had appropriate measures in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

The practice was clean and orderly. Good decontamination and infection control processes helped to reduce the risk of cross contamination.

Staff employed by the practice underwent a recruitment process which was fair and open and the provider made necessary checks to ensure staff were fit to undertake the role before any offer of employment was made. A comprehensive induction programme for new staff ensured they were competent and confident before carrying out their role unsupervised.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service people received from the practice. Feedback was sought from people who used the service on a continual basis and comments were used to shape the practice.

We carried out this announced inspection on 15 August 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 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

Richards and Schofield Dental Practice is in the centre of Preston and provides private dental care and treatment for adults and children.

There are steps at the front entrance to the practice with handrails positioned alongside to assist patients with limited mobility. Car parking is available outside the practice.

The dental team includes two dentists, three dental nurses, and a receptionist. The practice has two treatment rooms.

The practice is owned by a partnership 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 Richards and Schofield Dental Practice was the one of the partners.

We received feedback from 49 people during the inspection about the services provided. The feedback provided was positive.

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

The practice is open:

Monday to Friday 8.30am to 5.00pm.

Our key findings were:

• The practice was clean and well maintained.
• The practice had infection control procedures in place which reflected published guidance.
• Staff knew how to deal with medical emergencies. Appropriate medicines and equipment were available, with the exception of portable suction equipment.
• The provider had systems in place to manage risk.
• The provider had safeguarding procedures in place and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
• The provider had staff recruitment procedures in place.
• Staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with most current guidelines.
• Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
• The dental team provided preventive care and supported patients to achieve better oral health.
• The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
• The provider had a procedure in place for dealing with complaints. The practice dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
• The practice had a leadership and management structure and a culture of continuous improvement.
• Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
• The practice asked patients and staff for feedback about the services they provided.
• The provider had information governance arrangements in place.

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

• Review the practice’s arrangements for ensuring action is taken and recorded in response to patient safety alerts, recalls and rapid response reports issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Central Alerting System and other relevant bodies such as Public Health England.
• Review the availability of equipment in the practice to manage medical emergencies taking into account the guidelines issued by the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the General Dental Council, in particular in relation to the availability of portable suction equipment.
• Review the practice’s protocols for periodontal treatment taking into account the guidelines published by the British Periodontal Society.