• Dentist
  • Dentist

Pelham Dental Studio

2h The Avenue, Gravesend, Kent, DA11 0NA (01474) 361055

Provided and run by:
Dr Sodhi Shoker

All Inspections

27 April 2021 and 27 May 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook a follow up focused inspection of 27 April 2021 and 27 May 2021. The inspection was split over two visits due to exceptional circumstances. This inspection was carried out to review in detail the actions taken by the registered provider to improve the quality of care and to confirm that the practice was now meeting legal requirements.

The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist dental adviser.

We undertook a comprehensive inspection of Pelham Dental Studio on 18 July 2019 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We found the registered provider was not providing well led care and was in breach of regulations 13, 17, 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can read our report of that inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Pelham Dental Studio on our website www.cqc.org.uk.

As part of this inspection we asked:

• Is it well-led?

When one or more of the five questions are not met we require the service to make improvements and send us an action plan requirement notice only. We then inspect again after a reasonable interval, focusing on the areas where improvement was required.

Our findings were:

Are services well-led?

We found this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The provider had made improvements in relation to the regulatory breaches we found at our inspections on 27 April and 27 May 2021

Background

Pelham Dental studio is in Gravesend and provides NHS and private treatment for adults and children.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. Car parking spaces, including some for blue badge holders, are available on the practice premises.

The dental team includes a dentist, and a dental nurse. The practice has one treatment room.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal dentist there. They have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

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

The practice is open:

Monday to Thursday 9am to 5pm

Friday 9am to 12pm

Our key findings were:

  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
  • The provider had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff.
  • The provider had a safeguarding process. Staff, when questioned knew of their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children. We saw that all staff had completed safeguarding training.
  • The provider had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • The provider had effective leadership and a culture of continuous improvement.
  • The provider had suitable information governance arrangements.

18 July 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection on 18 July 2019 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 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 not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Pelham Dental Studio is in Gravesend and provides NHS and private treatment to adults and children.

There is level access for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. Car parking spaces, including some for blue badge holders, are available on the practice premises.

The dental team includes one dentist, one dental nurse, and two receptionists. The practice has one treatment room.

The practice is owned by an individual who is the principal dentist there. They have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run.

On the day of inspection, we collected 34 CQC comment cards filled in by patients and spoke with five other patients.

During the inspection we spoke with one dentist, one dental nurse and one receptionist. We looked at practice policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open:

Monday to Thursday 9am to 5pm

Friday 9am to 12pm

Our key findings were:

  • The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
  • The provider had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.
  • Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and most life-saving equipment were available.
  • The provider had some systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff, however these could be improved.
  • The provider did not have a safeguarding process. Staff, when questioned knew some of their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children. However, not all staff had completed safeguarding training.
  • The provider did not have thorough staff recruitment procedures.
  • 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.
  • Staff provided preventive care and supporting patients to ensure better oral health.
  • The appointment system took account of patients’ needs.
  • The provider did not have effective leadership or a culture of continuous improvement.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • The provider asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • The provider dealt with complaints positively and efficiently.
  • The provider did not have suitable information governance arrangements.

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
  • Ensure recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed.
  • Ensure patients are protected from abuse and improper treatment

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

4 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to three patients and they were all pleased with the standard of services they had received commenting, 'I've been coming here for many years' and 'Dr Shoker is a very good dentist and always explains things'.

We looked at six treatment record cards and saw that all had up to date medical history records and that assessments had been recorded. We saw that appointments were made for patients after they had seen the dentist by referring to the dentist notes and that patients seemed to understand why further treatment was being suggested.

Patient's were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. Decontamination procedures were appropriate. We saw that an Infection Prevention Society audit was completed on two occasions in 2012 and again on 1 February 2013. The results showed the practice had achieved 93% compliance with these audits.

The qualified nurse and dentist were registered with the General Dental Council and all staff received appropriate professional development.

Through review of the records we saw that patient's personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose.