CK Dental Health Clinic

We carried out this announced focused inspection on 13 July 2021 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. The inspection was led by a Care Quality Commission, (CQC), inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we asked the following three questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• 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 this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found this practice was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

CK Dental is a small, well-established practice in Bishops Stortford that provides private treatment to about 1500 patients. The dental team includes just one dentist and a nurse/practice manager, the practice has two treatment rooms.

As access to the practice is down a steep set of stairs, it is not accessible to wheelchair users.

The practice is owned by a company and as a condition of registration must have a person registered with the CQC 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. The registered manager at CK Dental is the dentist.

The practice is open Monday to Friday from 8.30am to 5pm, and appointments are available on a Saturday if required.

During the inspection we spoke with the dentist and the nurse/practice manager. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

Our key findings were:

• The provider had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
• The provider had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff.
• The provider had safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
• The provider asked patients for feedback about the services provided.
• The provider dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
• The provider had staff recruitment procedures which reflected current legislation.
• There were no systems to ensure that the completion of dental care records followed guidance provided by the Faculty of General Dental Practice.
• There were no systems to ensure the effective medicines management and storage.
• There was no system to ensure that regular audits of radiography, antibiotic prescribing and infection control were undertaken at recommended intervals to improve the quality of the service.

We identified regulations the provider was not complying with. They must:

• Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

Full details of the regulation the provider was not meeting are at the end of this report.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should

• Take action to ensure dentists are aware of the guidelines issued by the British Endodontic Society for the use of rubber dam for root canal treatment.

• Take action to ensure the clinicians take into account the guidelines issued by the Department of Health publication ‘Delivering better oral health: an evidence-based toolkit for prevention’ when promoting the maintenance of good oral health