• Dentist
  • Dentist

Archived: Apollonia House Dental Practice

2 Amery Street, Alton, Hampshire, GU34 1HN (01420) 84443

Provided and run by:
Dr. Timothy Langford

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

11 June 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Apollonia House Dental Practice provides private dental services and some NHS services. The practice is close to the centre of Alton and has one ground floor surgery as well as two surgeries and a decontamination room on the first floor. The staff structure of the practice consists of a dentist who is also the provider of the service, two part time dentists, a practice manager, a receptionist and three dental nurses. The practice also employs two part time dental hygienists.

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Apollonia House Dental Practice on 11 June 2015. This inspection was to follow up on previous areas of concern where we had asked the provider to take action.

At an inspection on 23 June 2014 we found that regulations relating to cleanliness and infection control and the management of medicines had not been met. We asked the provider to take action. We visited the practice again on 3 September 2014 and found the provider still had some work to complete to fully meet regulations.

On 11 June 2015 we revisited the practice and spoke with staff, including the provider, the practice manager, a dental nurse and a specialist in business and compliance support. We reviewed a number of documents including policies, procedures, equipment monitoring and maintenance records, and audits relating to infection prevention and control. We did not speak to any patients during our inspection.

We found that the practice had taken reasonable steps to address the breaches in regulations found at our last inspections. The practice had systems to assess and manage risks to patients, including for the prevention and control of infection, and the management of medicines. There were clear guidelines regarding the maintenance and monitoring of decontamination equipment. The practice ensured that appropriate arrangements were in place for checking emergency medicines we found that medicines were stored securely and systems to control stock were in place.

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Our key findings were:

  • All equipment and medicines recommended for use in a medical emergency were in date, readily available and followed national guidance.
  • All medicines and dental materials stored at the practice were in date and stored securely.
  • The practice had introduced a system to track the maintenance and monitoring of equipment and any safety and stock checks that were required.
  • Infection control procedures were in place and the practice followed published guidance.
  • All equipment at the practice was regularly maintained, tested and monitored for safety and effectiveness.

3 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our inspection in January 2013 we found the provider had failed to implement measures that were reasonably practicable to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

Following the inspection the provider wrote to us and told us the actions they would take to ensure the service attained compliance. At a further inspection in June 2014 we found the provider had not made all the improvements required to reduce the risk and spread of infections. This was a continuing breach of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. At that inspection we identified further areas of concern in relation to infection prevention and control we therefore issued a warning notice.

On 3 September 2014 we carried out an inspection to follow up on the actions the provider had taken as a result of the warning notice. We found the provider had done a significant amount of work to meet most of the actions required by the warning notice. However they had failed to achieve all the actions of the warning notice in addition further areas of non-compliance were identified at this inspection.

23 June 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection of this service on 10 January 2013 we found that the provider had not implemented all measures they could to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We carried out this visit to check on the improvements that the provider told us had been made.

During this visit we saw that a new decontamination room had been created on the first floor and staff were able to describe the procedures in place for the decontamination of instruments in that room. They were pleased with the improvements that had been made and said that it made the decontamination process easier and more efficient. However we found that there were still areas of concern in relation to infection prevention and control.

At this follow up inspection we found areas of concern which led us to look at the way in which medicines were managed at this practice. The systems in place to monitor the security of medicines and the replacement of stock were ineffective.

10 January 2013

During a routine inspection

After our visit, we spoke with four patients by telephone and asked them about their experiences of care and treatment. Everyone said that their dental care and treatment was explained in detail, and that they were treated with courtesy and respect. People told us that risks and benefits of different treatments were explained. One person said; 'I find the dentist very reassuring. My child was given a full explanation of what was being done throughout. I think this helped them relax.'

People told us that they were given advice about how to keep their teeth and gums healthy. One person said; 'I get very good information about how to look after my teeth.' People said they were given treatment plans which included costs and treatment schedules.

People said they found the practice was clean and that staff adhered to good hygienic practices. During our visit however we found that some aspects of the decontamination process did not meet recommended practice.

From looking at records we found that staff were supported to maintain their professional skills. People who use the service commented on staff, stating for example; 'They work well as a team' and 'My dentist has great skill. Everyone is very professional, pleasant and helpful.

The service monitors the quality of service it provides, by reviewing practice and feedback from people who use the service.