We found at our last inspection visit to Richmond House Dental Surgery in 2013 that improvements were required regarding the complaints system in place. The provider sent us an action plan following our visit which recorded the action taken to address the issue raised.

We conducted this inspection to check and see if people who used this dental surgery had been made aware of how to make a complaint. We saw that information was available suggesting that people who had concerns or complaints speak with a member of the practice staff. We saw that a detailed complaints procedure was available and complaint log sheets were used to record details of any complaint received. We saw that one complaint had been received since our last inspection visit. Details of this complaint were logged and action taken to address issues raised were recorded.

We spoke with two people who used the services of this dental surgery. These people said that they would speak with staff if they had any concerns. One person said that they would ask for a copy of the complaint procedure. Both people were extremely happy with the service that they received and had not had cause to complain.

This dental practice is located on the ground floor and was accessible to people who have restricted mobility. The premises consisted of three treatment rooms, a waiting area, toilet and a decontamination room.

The staff team consisted of two dentists, three hygienists and four dental nurses and a practice manager. All the staff were registered with the General Dental Council.

We found that people were provided with information about their treatment options and consent was obtained before treatment commenced.

Records were maintained of people’s treatment and when it was necessary for a revisit. The cost for treatment was displayed in the waiting room.

We found that the process for the decontamination of instruments used for treatment was satisfactory but some instruments were worn and unsuitable for use.

We found that the management of medicines was satisfactory.

The practice’s staff recruitment processes were appropriate to ensure the suitability of staff who worked there. One person who used the service said, "The staff team are excellent."

The staff we spoke with confirmed they had access to regular training to ensure they had the necessary skills and competence to undertake their role.

The practice did not have an effective system in place for identifying, receiving, handling and responding to complaints. One person who used the service said, "I'm unaware of the practice's complaint procedure."