Archived: Pure Orthodontics (Richard Skeggs)

Updated 17 December 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the practice was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

We carried out an announced, comprehensive inspection on 17 November 2015. The inspection team consisted of one Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector and a dental specialist advisor. Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the provider together with information that we asked them to send to us in advance of the inspection. During our inspection visit, we reviewed a range of policies and procedures and other documents including dental care records. We spoke with six members of staff, including members of the management team.

Prior to the inspection we asked the practice to send us information which we reviewed. This included the complaints they had received in the last 12 months, their latest statement of purpose, the details of the staff members, their qualifications and proof of registration with their professional bodies.

We also reviewed the information we held about the practice and found there were no areas of concern.

During the inspection we spoke with one orthodontist, the practice manager, four dental nurses, the decontamination auxiliary and one receptionist. We reviewed policies, procedures and other documents. We received feedback about the dental service from 42 patients.

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 therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 17 December 2015

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 17 November 2015 to ask the practice the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

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

Nottingham Orthodontic Centre was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 26 May 2011. The practice is registered to provide regulated dental services to patients in Nottingham and the surrounding areas. The practice provides both NHS and private orthodontic dental treatment, with approximately 95% being NHS patients.

Orthodontics is a dental speciality dealing primarily with the diagnosis, prevention and correction of teeth that are wrongly positioned, and the jaws.

The practice is open:

Monday to Friday: From 8:30 am to 3:30 pm;

The practice has two orthodontic specialists; one dentist with practice limited to orthodontics; one orthodontic therapist; and four dental nurses. The orthodontic therapist is also the practice manager; there is one specific receptionist.

We received feedback from 42 patients about the services provided. The feedback was all positive, with many patients talking about the professionalism of the staff, and how well treatment was explained. Patients also spoke about being treated with dignity and respect, and some who had been receiving treatment for a while talked positively about the results of that treatment.

Our key findings were:

• The practice had effective systems to record, investigate and respond to accidents, significant events and complaints.
• Learning from complaints and significant incidents were recorded and learning was shared with staff.
• All staff had received whistle blowing training and were aware of these procedures and the actions required.
• Patients provided positive feedback about the orthodontic service.
• Patients said they were treated with dignity and respect.
• The practice was able to demonstrate there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of patients.
• Staff had been trained to deal with medical emergencies.
• Emergency medicines, an automated external defibrillator (AED) and oxygen were readily available. An AED is a portable electronic device that automatically diagnoses life threatening irregularities of the heart and delivers an electrical shock to attempt to restore a normal heart rhythm.
• The practice followed the relevant guidance from the Department of Health's: ‘Health Technical Memorandum 01-05 (HTM 01-05) for infection control.
• Patients were involved in making decisions about their treatment, and were able to ask questions.
• Options for treatment were identified and explored and discussed with patients and their closest relatives when appropriate.

• Patients’ confidentiality was maintained.