King Gaigher & Chastell

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.

The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs and preferences. Patients could access care and treatment from the practice within an acceptable timescale for their needs. The practice had an appointment system to respond to patients’ needs. Patients had enough time during their appointment and did not feel rushed.

Staff described the reasonable adjustments they had made to ensure the practice was accessible. For example, there was a hearing induction loop, large print leaflets/alternative formats available, a magnifying glass and language translation. Staff were clear about the importance of providing emotional support to patients when delivering care.

Staff had carried out a disability access audit and had formulated an action plan to continually improve access for patients. This confirmed that the practice was located in a Grade II listed building and was not wheelchair accessible. It was also not suitable for a stairlift or elevator. Patients requiring disabled access were signposted to a neighbouring practice which was fully accessible. The practice supported more vulnerable members of society such as patients living with dementia or adults and children with a learning disability. The practice displayed its opening hours and provided information on their website. The frequency of appointments was agreed between the dentist and the patient, giving due regard to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The practice provided telephone numbers for patients needing emergency dental treatment when the practice was not open. At the time of our assessment, 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.