Bidford Dental Practice Also known as Rodericks Dental Limited

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.

Staff had carried out a disability access audit and had formulated an action plan to continually improve access for patients.

Staff described the reasonable adjustments they had made to ensure the practice was accessible.

The practice was located on the ground, first and second floor of a building, with all patient areas including the reception and waiting area, disabled access toilet and treatment rooms located on the ground floor. There were 3 small steps to gain access to the waiting area and treatment rooms and a portable ramp was available for use making it suitable for wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs. The practice had a hearing induction loop to support patients with a hearing impairment. The practice had access to large print or alternative formats of information, and a magnifying glass. Also available to support patients with impaired vision, was an electronic tablet for completion of medical history or consent forms; information on the electronic tablets could be enlarged if required. Staff had access to language translation services, including British Sign Language and information was available in other languages as required.

Staff were clear about the importance of providing emotional support to patients when delivering care. For example, reception staff chatted to patients to try and make them feel at ease and extra time was given at appointments for nervous patients. We were told that staff talked to anxious patients to find out their fears and to try to allay any worries.

The practice supported more vulnerable members of society, for example, patients living with dementia or adults and children with a learning disability. Appointments could be offered at quieter times of the day if this was the patient’s wish.

The practice displayed its opening hours and provided information on their website, patient information leaflet and social media page.

The frequency of appointments was agreed between the dentist and the patient, giving due regard to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

The practice provided telephone numbers for patients needing emergency dental treatment during the working day and when the practice was not open. Staff took part in an emergency on-call arrangement for private patients with another local practice and patients were directed to the appropriate out-of-hours service.

At the time of our inspection, 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.