When we inspected The Dental Surgery on 6 June 2013, we found the surgery was clean and instruments were being sterilised appropriately. However, we also found that people were not fully protected from the risk of infection. This was because some systems designed to assess the risk of and to prevent, detect and control the spread of infection were lacking, or did not meet specification. We judged this to have a minor impact on people using the service.

We inspected the service again, to check improvements had been made. During this inspection, we found that staff at the service were regularly testing and recording water temperatures, as part of the service's measures to prevent a contaminated water supply. We saw that staff were also maintaining records on the flushing (the continuous running of water and sometimes disinfectant for a period of time) of dental unit water lines (DUWLs). We found that the service had completed an audit of all its infection control processes and procedures on 26 September 2013. The audit demonstrated the service was performing well in this area.

We looked in one of the treatment rooms and saw that a previously damaged floor had been replaced. The new, hard surface floor was easy to clean, in contrast to the previous flooring which was unlikely to have been cleaned properly.

This meant that people were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

The people we spoke with said they received good explanations and relevant advice about their care from the dentists. They told us they had the opportunity to ask questions and felt these were answered satisfactorily. People told us they felt the surgery was clean. They said they had confidence the dentists were competent professionals and had never needed to complain about the service. One person said of The Dental Surgery: "I would recommend the practice. My dentist is very proficient and unhurried." Another person said: "It's a nice place to come."

During our visit we found each individual's chronology of treatment and the basics of any discussions had with them to be documented. We found that each individual had their medical history and any risk factors specific to them reviewed and recorded. We saw that arrangements were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies, including the provision of items for use in an emergency. We found that staff were appropriately registered and receiving professional development relevant to their roles. We saw the surgery was clean. However, some processes designed to prevent the risk of infection were lacking or did not meet specification.

We found the service had a complaints system in place and information about the NHS and privately funded complaints procedures were available to people who use the service. People had their complaints responded to appropriately.