Paragondental

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found this practice was providing effective 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 Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The provider had systems to ensure that people who used the service received person-centred, care and treatment, that was appropriate, met their needs and was reflective of their personal preferences. Preventive oral health care was encouraged.

Staff kept up to date with current evidence-based practice, and had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

The practice offered dental implants and had access to the appropriate equipment for the placement of implants. Staff obtained full consent for the provision of implants.

The practice offered conscious sedation for patients. The sedation was provided by a medically qualified seditionist, who attended the practice when required. The practice’s systems included checks before and after treatment, emergency equipment requirements, medicines management, sedation equipment checks, and staff availability and training.

The practice manufactured custom made dental restorations onsite and we saw that an application had been made for registration with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

We looked at 12 patient care records. The information recorded in these patient care records were not always in line with recognised guidance. Improvement was required to ensure that all patients’ assessments were fully recorded and included a basic periodontal examination, the discussion with the patient regarding treatment options and the reporting of X-rays and scans.

Staff obtained patients’ consent for treatment in line with legislation and guidance and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff described how they involved patients’ relatives or carers when appropriate and made sure they had enough time to explain treatment options clearly.

The practice did not always follow current guidance when prescribing and dispensing of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were not carried out.

Where applicable, patients were referred to primary and secondary care specialists for treatment the practice did not provide. This included referring patients with suspected cancer under the national faster diagnostic pathways. However, the practice did not have a process in place for monitoring these referrals. Following the inspection, we saw that a log had been implemented.

Staff felt the practice supported them to develop and enabled them to take on responsibilities.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.