Our inspection on 3 December 2013 found that information provided by the provider did not evidence compliance with guidance issued by the Department of Health for "Conscious sedation in the provision of dental care" around medical emergencies. This guidance stipulated what equipment dentists were required to have to ensure patient safety was maintained when conscious sedation was used, such as an automated external defibrillator (AED). We did not find an AED in the practice or a risk assessment to deem having one un-necessary. This meant that the registered person was not following current guidance in the use of conscious sedation which had the potential to place patients at risk of harm.

We asked the provider to take action to address these concerns. They wrote to us confirming that all required actions had been taken to comply with the regulations regarding conscious sedation carried out at the practice. A planned follow-up inspection was scheduled to check that the provider had achieved compliance.

Patients were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment.

Patients said "The staff and dentist treat me well, they are very good with you” and “They treated me with respect”. All of the patients we talked with were complimentary about the practice.

We reviewed the treatment records for ten patients and saw that treatment plans and options had been explained and recorded. We saw that records included details of the patients' medical history and that these were routinely updated. We saw that the dental practitioners recorded discussions they had with patients about oral health and oral hygiene routines.

We asked the provider to send us information about their operational policies for conscious sedation, the qualifications and most up to date professional development records for the dental practitioner providing the sedation and what systems were in place for medical emergencies. We wanted to be satisfied that the provider was meeting current best practice guidance in this area. However, this information had not been received by the timescales stated. This meant that the registered person was unable to evidence that good practices had been followed in the use of conscious sedation which could place people at potential risk of its inappropriate use.

We found that systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection were managed effectively. Staff talked about their experience of the support they received to enable them to carry out their roles. They told us that they had opportunities for continuing professional development (CPD).

Patients and their representatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

We found that the service had the appropriate policies in place to manage and monitor the quality of the service provided. These included policies for dealing with emergencies