Archived: Total Orthodontics Camberley

The provider's head office was responsible for recruitment and held the files for staff working at the practice. For the inspection the manager was able to provide us with copies of the relevant information required and we found this to be in line with the regulations.

The provider's head office dealt with written complaints. We reviewed the complaints policy and found this to be up to date and relevant. The complaints policy was clearly on display in the waiting area for patients to review. The manager had recorded any verbal concerns raised by patients and how they had been resolved. Staff told us any relevant concerns were discussed to ensure lessons could be learnt.

We did not speak to patients during this inspection.

Three people who used the service told us 'they were provided with good information about the treatments. They told us that they found the written information provided very helpful and informative. They wrote, 'The staff were always polite and helpful'.

One person wrote, 'I have been using this practice for two years and I am very satisfied. The staff respects me and the orthodontist has provided me with sufficient information that helps me to make choices about my treatment.'

The three people whom we surveyed wrote, 'The practice is comfortable and accommodating and that appointments are flexible to meet my needs.'

People told us the orthodontist made sure they understood their treatment and choice by giving information in a way they could understand. People said a range of treatment was discussed with them, but they made the choice of treatment they wanted.

We found that the provider had not ensured an effective selection process was in place to ensure suitable staff were employed, and the provider had not kept a record of complaints which was readily available for inspection neither had they brought the complaints system to the attention of people who used the service.