Archived: The Lodge Dental Suite - Cheshunt

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations and had taken into consideration appropriate guidance.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

Patients told us they were given clear information to help them make an informed choice about their treatment and any associated costs. They were involved in decisions about their care. Patients told us that when they were prescribed medicines, sufficient information was given. Patients told us that they were supported to maintain their oral health and were provided with appropriate information and resources.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred care and treatment that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. The dentist confirmed, where applicable, they referred patients to a range of specialists in primary and secondary care for treatment the practice did not provide. However, there were limited systems to ensure patient referrals to other dental or health care professionals were centrally monitored to ensure they were received in a timely manner and not lost. Immediately after the on-site assessment the practice implemented a log to monitor the outcomes of referrals made out of the practice. Staff told us how they kept up to date with current evidence-based practice. The practice provided preventive care and supported patients to ensure better oral health. Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on lead roles and responsibilities. Staff worked together and with other health and social care professionals to deliver effective care and treatment. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the need to obtain patients’ consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. They understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. The practice had systems to keep dental professionals up to date with current evidence-based practice. However, improvements could be made to ensure antimicrobial prescribing reflects the College of General Dentistry guidance. A visiting dentist provided implants to patients at the practice. However, evidence that the dentist had undertaken additional postgraduate training in implants was not available on the day of the on-site assessment. We looked at 3 patient implant care records. However, we were not able to see that the provision of dental implants was in accordance with national guidance with respect to the carrying out of a full assessment and that informed consent had been obtained for the treatment. Immediately after the on-site assessment, the provider informed us that implants would no longer be offered to patients at the practice. We looked at 6 patient general dental care records. The information recorded in these patient care records was in line with recognised guidance. Staff obtained patients’ consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. They understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw evidence the dentists justified, graded and reported on the radiographs they took. The practice had systems for the safe handling and prescribing of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were carried out. However, the log used to record when medicines were received and dispensed was not effective as it did not clearly show the stock of medicines held in the practice. Immediately after the on-site assessment an improved log was implemented to record this information. Staff worked together and with other health and social care professionals to deliver effective care and treatment. The practice had systems for referring patients with suspected cancer under the national two-week wait arrangements.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.