Archived: Ortho Limited t/a Cheyne Walk Orthodontics

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found this practice was providing responsive 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 Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The Provider described the difficulties for patients to access NHS orthodontic treatment within an acceptable timescale for their needs. The NHS orthodontic treatment waiting time can vary widely depending on demand for services, geographic location and specific orthodontic needs. On average the wait for treatment is around 2-years. The practice waiting time was approximately 2-years. The practice had an appointment system to respond to patients’ needs. Patient comments we viewed stated the practice tried hard to accommodate the timings they required to avoid leaving work or school.

Leaders described the difficulty with providing reasonable adjustments to ensure the practice was accessible due to being a listed building. The practice was not accessible for patients with access requirements as there was step entry at the front and rear of the building and once inside. Staff were clear about the importance of providing emotional support to patients when delivering care. They described how they would comfort nervous patients by offering to chaperone and hold their hands.

Staff had carried out a disability access audit which included an action plan to try to become more accessible in 2025, which included consideration of a new entrance and a hearing loop. Staff had access to language translation services to support patients. Staff had not received training on how to deal with patients with a learning disability or autism at a level appropriate to their role. The practice told us they did not often treat more vulnerable members of society, such as patients living with dementia or adults and children with a learning disability. However, they allowed additional time during appointments if required and described lived experiences. The practice did not display its opening hours and NHS choices website had not been updated to reflect their opening times since November 2010. The signage outside and inside the practice was advertised as a different name. The provider told us this was for patients having private treatment. There was a separate phone line and website for this provider name, which also did not include the practice opening hours. The frequency of appointments was agreed between the dentist and the patient, giving due regard to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The practice provided telephone numbers via answerphone message for patients needing emergency dental treatment during the working day and when the practice was not open. At the time of our assessment, patients who needed an urgent appointment were offered one in a timely manner. When the practice was unable to offer an urgent appointment, they worked with partner organisations to support urgent access for patients.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.