We carried out this announced inspection of Victoria Bridge Dental Practice 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. A CQC inspector, who was supported by a specialist dental adviser, led the inspection.

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

Victoria Bridge Dental Practice provides mostly NHS treatment to patients of all ages. The practice is part of IDH Limited who have a large number of dental practices across the UK. The practice employs 14 staff, including three dentists, three nurses and a practice manager. A hygienist visits once a week. The practice has three treatment rooms and is open on Mondays to Fridays, from 8.30am to 5.30pm.

There is level entry access for people who use wheelchairs but no disabled access toilet facilities.

The practice is owned by IDH Ltd 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. At the time of the inspection, the practice did not have a registered manager in post.

On the day of our inspection we collected 25 comment cards filled in by patients; we also spoke with another two during our inspection.

During the inspection, we spoke with two dentists, two dental nurses, reception staff and the interim practice manager. We looked at the practice’s policies and procedures, and other records about how the service was managed.

Our key findings were:

• Patients were happy with the quality of their treatment and with the staff who delivered it.
• The practice had systems to help ensure patient safety. These included safeguarding children and adults from abuse, learning from incidents and responding to medical emergencies.
• Risk assessment was robust and action was taken to protect staff and patients.

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current best practice guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other published guidance. Members of the dental team were up-to-date with their continuing professional development and were supported to meet the requirements of their professional registration.

• The practice dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.

Six people who were attending the surgery for treatment during our inspection told us they were satisfied with the quality of the dental treatment that they had received. One person said, "I am perfectly happy with my dentist. I always see the same dentist and that suits me."

Care and treatment records were in place for all people who had received treatment although some additional information about people’s health and medication had not always been recorded by the dentist at each appointment that people had attended.

People told us that they had been fully informed about their proposed treatment and could make choices about this.

The provider had taken adequate steps to ensure that children and vulnerable adults were protected from abuse.

Infection control processes and arrangements were effective and had reduced the risk of cross infection.

The premises were visibly clean, although some maintenance of the premises was required. The layout and design of the treatment rooms presented a trip hazard and did not ensure that staff had adequate working space.