Archived: Elm Tree Dental Surgery Frinton-on-Sea

We found that the provider now had effective systems in place that maintained appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene to protect people from the risks of a health care related infection.

Many improvements had been made, including upgrading the sinks in the decontamination room, regular legionnaire testing on the water supply and hand gels now mounted on the walls.

Staff were supported in the workplace. Annual appraisals had been implemented that covered staff competency, training and development. Staff files reflected the training they had received. It was evident that dental nurses were undertaking their continuous professional development to maintain their skill levels. We spoke with three members of staff on the day of our visit who all felt supported by the provider.

The provider had undertaken a number of audits to assess the quality of the services they provided. Where areas for improvement had been identified these were actioned and discussed with staff for learning purposes.

Since our last inspection we saw that the provider had made improvements in the majority of the areas we had raised concerns about, and which required action to be taken by the provider.

Most of the people we spoke with were happy with treatment they had received at Elm Tree Dental Surgery. Comments included: "Yes I think things have improved, there is more information to read." and another person told us: "I always get good treatment, I am told about what I can have done and the prices were made clear."

People told us they were provided with information about their treatment in a way that they could understand and this included treatment options and related costs. People felt they were involved in their treatment.

We found that the provider overall had effective systems in place to reduce the risk of cross infection.

The provider did not fully have an effective operation of systems for monitoring, recording and evaluating accurate information about the quality and safety of the service it provided, and its outcomes. This was with particular reference to appropriate training and supervision for staff, handwashing facilities and a full legionella risk assessment being done.

Most of the people we spoke with were happy with treatment they had received at Elm Tree Dental Surgery. Comments included: 'I am quite happy with the service I have received so far, I would not go there if I had any concerns.' and 'I have been going this dentist for three years and have received a good service, everybody is helpful.'

Only a few people told us they were provided with information about their treatment in a way that they could understand and this included treatment options and related costs. People felt they were not always involved in their treatment. One person told us 'I think they explained everything but I didn't sign anything." One person told us they did not feel the dentist had taken time to listen to them or answer their questions.

We found that the provider did not have effective systems in place to reduce the risk of cross infection.

We found that the service had not been effectively managed and the provider had not taken appropriate steps to identify this. The provider did not have established systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service or identify, assess and manage any risks in relation to the safety of the service provided. This included the safety and suitability of equipment, medication management and the training and supervision of staff.