The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Archived: The New Dental Surgery - Hindhead

Parsons Lane, Beacon Hill, Hindhead, Surrey, GU26 6NP (01428) 604445

Provided and run by:
Dr. Mark Walewski

All Inspections

29 June 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection of this service under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 on 20 February 2015 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to look at the overall quality of the service. Breaches of legal requirements were found. As a result we undertook a desk based focused inspection on 29 June 2015 to follow up on whether action had been taken to deal with the breaches.

During our previous inspection on the 20 February 2015 we found the following:-

  • We found the compressor and some X-ray equipment had not been maintained and serviced within appropriate timescales. This meant we could not be assured of their safety.
  • The quality of the service was not systematically or regularly reviewed
  • We had concerns the practice complaints procedure was not robust as we found three different complaints policies in current use.

We conducted a desk based focused inspection. This means the provider was able to send us evidence of the action taken to address the issues previously found rather than visiting the practice.

During this inspection we found:-

  • The compressor had been recently serviced
  • Three of the four x-ray machines were compliant with the maintenance schedules. However, the forth x-ray machine within the hygienist room was no longer in use. The practice would be required to send us evidence of the assessment and servicing of this x-ray machine before its future use.
  • A patient questionnaire had been designed and was ready to be used and the quality of the service was reviewed by several audits

The practice was now using only one complaints procedure

20 February 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our inspection we found the provider was no longer working at the practice and had employed an associate dentist to provide care and treatment for patients in his absence alongside the existing dentist. We spoke with four staff members including a dentist, a dental nurse, a receptionist and the interim practice manager. We observed interactions between patients and reception staff and we reviewed 17 clinical patient records and records relating to the management of the service. Subsequent to our inspection, we spoke with 8 patients on the telephone about their experience of receiving care and treatment at the practice.

We found the practice no longer offered NHS treatment and provided care and treatment on a private basis only. The provider had very recently employed an 'interim practice manager' to help support the practice in making any changes or improvements necessary. They had only been working at the practice for two days.

We spoke with eight patients who all gave positive feedback about the care and treatment they had received. One patient told us, "the staff are really lovely there (at the practice). I can't fault them.'

We observed staff members speaking to patients politely both at the practice and over the telephone and found they were happy to answer questions. We found records relating to patients were kept securely ensuring confidentiality. Patients told us they were given time to think before undergoing treatment. We found patients had been asked for their consent before treatment commenced.

We found people's oral health needs were assessed and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual treatment plan. People's care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance.

An effective system was in place for the prescribing, recording, dispensing, use and stock control of the medicines used in clinical practice. The batch numbers and expiry dates for local anaesthetics were recorded. These medicines were stored safely for the protection of patients.

We found the compressor and some X-ray equipment had not been maintained and serviced within appropriate timescales. This meant we could not be assured of their safety.

Patients had been asked for their views about the quality of the service. However, the quality of the service was not systematically or regularly reviewed. Patients were given the opportunity to make comments and complaints. We found one complaint that had been received since our last inspection which had been acted on and responded to appropriately. However, we had concerns the practice complaints procedure was not robust as we found three different complaints policies in current use.

The provider had an effective system in place to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of incidents specified in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which prevent or are likely to prevent the service's ability to provide safe care and treatment. This meant people's welfare, health and safety were protected.

We reviewed 17 clinical patient records which were well structured, fit for purpose and stored securely.

16 July 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During the inspection we spoke with seven patients, one member of the administration team, two dental nurses, one dental hygienist and two dentists. We also observed interactions between patients and reception staff. We reviewed twenty patient records that we selected at random.

Patients told us that they were satisfied with the services they had received. One patient said 'I feel confident in the clinicians and the staff are friendly'. Another patient commented 'I trust the dentist implicitly. I know him well enough'.

From our review of the records we found that not all patients had been fully involved in making decisions regarding their care and treatment because they had not been provided with adequate information to enable them to do so.

Patients had not always been asked for their consent before treatment commenced.

Patient's individual care and treatment needs had not always been assessed, planned or delivered to meet their needs safely.

Patients were being protected from the risks of infection by being treated in a clean and hygienic environment.

We found that the refrigerators that were used to store medicines were not being monitored to ensure that they maintained the correct temperature range for the medicines they contained. Additionally, we also found the provider did not always record the type, dosage or frequency of antibiotics prescribed.

Patients had been asked for their views about the quality of the service. However, the quality of the service was not systematically or regularly reviewed.

Patients were given the opportunity to make comments and complaints. However, the provider did not have an effective mechanism to ensure that they were acted on and responded to appropriately.

Patient treatment records did not always demonstrate that patients had their care and clinical needs assessed, planned or delivered in a safe way that met their individual circumstances.

9 January 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke with five people during the inspection and four other people completed our questionnaire. We also observed two patient consultations with the same dentist and spoke with staff.

People told us they were satisfied with the service they had received. One person said "I feel comfortable coming here". Another person said "The staff are kind". One other person commented that a dentist explained their treatment in a way they understood.

We found that people had not been fully involved in making decisions regarding their care because they had not been provided with adequate information.

People had not always been asked for their consent prior to treatments being started.

People's treatment needs had not always been assessed, planned or delivered to meet their needs safely.

People were not being protected from the risks of infection or being treated in a clean and hygienic environment.

People had not been asked for their views about the quality of the service and the provider had failed to assess or monitor the quality of the service they provided.

Where people had been given the opportunity to make comments and complaints these had not been responded to or acted on.

People's treatment records did not demonstrate that people had their needs assessed, planned or delivered in a safe way that met their individual needs.