At our inspection on 27 January 2014 we were concerned that we were not able to verify with the provider that pre-employment checks had been undertaken to ensure that staff were of a suitable character to carry out their roles because references and CV’s were not available to confirm this on the day of inspection.

We were also concerned that medical histories were not easily accessible for dentists when carrying out consultations. This meant there was a risk to people using the service as they were being treated without the provider knowing their medical conditions or identifying any potential risk to treatment.

We asked the provider to take action.

At the follow up inspection we found evidence that all pre-employment checks had been carried out for all employees before appointed by the provider, and that all medical histories had been scanned onto the computer system and were updated by the dentist at the time of appointment making the information readily available at the time of consultation.

Six dentists worked at the practice at different times during the week supported by two dental nurses, one of whom was also the practice manager. On the day of our visit there were no dentists working at the practice and therefore no patients being seen. However we spoke to the two dental nurses and observed staff dealing with people calling in to make enquiries and we spoke with five patients who had used the service recently. The people we spoke to were happy with the treatment provided. For example, one person said ‘I was perfectly happy with the treatment provided.’ Another told us ‘They do a really good job.’

We saw that people’s views and choices about their treatment were respected and treatment was provided in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

In respect of measures to prevent and control the spread of infection we noted that the decontamination of instruments used by the dentists was undertaken by another Smile Pod practice and not carried out on the premises of this service. We saw that staff at this practice had sufficient procedures in place to prevent and control the spread of infection within the practice.

We found that people were treated by staff who were qualified to do so although there was insufficient information available at the practice to corroborate that all were of a suitable character.

We saw that the practice had an effective complaints system in place and that any concerns people expressed were dealt with promptly and effectively.

Whilst we were at the practice we noticed that a large number of the records of people’s medical histories were not readily accessible for use in consultations.