The Care Quality Commission
  • Dentist
  • Dentist

Boodle Dental Surgery

68 Bradwell Common Boulevard, Bradwell Common, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, MK13 8RN (01908) 674025

Provided and run by:
Boodles Limited

All Inspections

5 June 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on Monday 5 June 2017 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection in response to concerns raised to the CQC and in order 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 CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

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

Boodles Dental Surgery is in Bradwell Common, Milton Keynes and provides private treatment to patients of all ages. It is one of five practices in the area owned by Boodles Limited.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and pushchairs. Car parking spaces, including those for patients with disabled badges, are available in the car park which is shared with the medical centre.

The dental team includes one dentist and a pool of eight nurses and five receptionists who work across all five practices owned by the company. Staff from this practice may be required to work at other dental practices within the company. The practice has one treatment room.

The practice is owned by a company 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. After the inspection we were told by the owner of the practice that an application to register a manager was in the process of being submitted.

On the day of inspection we collected 11 CQC comment cards filled in by patients and spoke with one other patient. This information gave us a positive view of the practice.

During the inspection we spoke with one dentist, two dental nurses (one of whom was assisting with the inspection process. This dental nurse did not work at the practice on a regular basis) and one receptionist. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open: 8.30am to 1pm and 2pm to 5.30pm Monday to Friday.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice was clean and well maintained.
  • There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and competent staff and clinical staff were up-to-date with their continuing professional development.
  • The practice had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The practice had systems to help them manage risk.
  • The practice had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
  • The appointment system met patients’ needs.
  • The practice had effective leadership. Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The practice dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.

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

  • Review the storage of dental care products requiring refrigeration to ensure they are stored in line with the manufacturer’s guidance and the fridge temperature is monitored and recorded.
  • Review the systems in place to meet the needs of patients with hearing difficulties or of those patients who do not speak or understand English.
  • Review the systems in place to learn from complaints and incidents.

5 August 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to follow up on concerns we found at an inspection of this practice on 30 January 2015. At the inspection on 30 January 2015 we found that the practice was not meeting the regulations in relation to safety and suitability of (X-ray) equipment, requirements relating to workers and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. After that inspection, the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the relevant regulations.

We undertook this focused inspection on 5 August 2015 to check that the practice had completed their action plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Boodle Dental Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this practice was providing safe care 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

Boodle Dental Surgery is a general dental practice in Bradwell Common, Milton Keynes offering private dental treatment to adults and children.

The staff at the practice consist of two dentists who work part-time at this location, a dental nurse and a receptionist. The practice manager divides their time between this practice and another of the provider’s locations, Furzton Dental Centre.

The practice does not currently have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons 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 practice told us after the inspection they are in the process of submitting an application for a registered manager.

Our key findings were:

  • There were systems in place for identifying, investigating and learning from incidents relating to the safety of patients and staff members.
  • The practice had systems in place for the safe management of dental radiography.
  • There were effective recruitment and selection procedures in place.
  • There was an effective system in place for acknowledging, recording, investigating and responding to complaints, concerns and suggestions made by patients.
  • The practice had comprehensive and effective quality assurance and risk management structures in place.

30 January 2015

During an inspection in response to concerns

On 30 January 2015 we carried out an unannounced inspection at Boodle Dental Surgery as a result of concerns that had been raised with us in relation to the care and treatment patients received at the practice. At the same that this inspection was being carried out, two other locations owned by the same provider, were also inspected, due to similar concerns. These took place at Furzton Dental Centre, 61 Dulverton Drive, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire and Olney Dental Centre at 19 Market Place, Olney, Buckinghamshire.

On the day of the inspection we spoke with a dentist, dental nurses and a receptionist and checked documents held at the practice and at their head office (Furzton Dental).

We found that the practice followed published guidance in relation to infection control procedures, that sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff were on duty and that they were supported by the practice.

We found that service users were not protected against the risks of the use of unsafe equipment because evidence was not available to reflect that it had been installed, serviced and maintained appropriately. We found that recruitment processes were not being followed effectively.

We found that there was an absence of monitoring and assessment of the services the practice provided. Documents were not available for us to view on the day of our visit and despite the provider being requested to provide them at a later date, they were not provided.

1 May 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection was a follow up inspection to the one we completed in January 2014. During the inspection in January 2014 we identified concerns with consent procedures, infection control arrangements and the checks that were made on staff during their recruitment. As a result of these concerns we needed to look at the paperwork the provider maintained and we did not need to speak to people using the service.

We found that a consent policy had been introduced and staff understood these requirements. We found that the infection control policy had been improved and cleaning records were completed as required. We also found that a recruitment policy had been introduced and staff had received appropriate background checks.

7 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service and they told us that they were happy with the service they received. One person told us that they had been nervous but told us "It wasn't as bad as I expected" as the dentist had been gentle. Both people told us that the dentist explained the findings of the dental examination in a manner they could understand and they understood what their treatment options were.

We found that people were involved in their treatment planning and that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. However we found that the provider did not have adequate systems in place to obtain people's consent and did not have suitable systems in place to ensure infection control procedures or recruitment checks were carried out effectively.