Greg Gossayn Dental Surgery

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 not providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations. We will be following up on our concerns to ensure they have been put right by the provider. During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns related to the completeness of patient care records and the practice having ineffective systems to ensure dental professionals kept up to date with current evidence-based practice. This resulted in a breach of Regulation 17(Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the detailed findings below.

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 had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles, but did not always keep up to date with current evidence-based practice. We did not see evidence that clinical staff staged or graded periodontal disease, in line with up-to-date guidance from the British Society of Periodontology. We looked at 6 patient care records. Dental care records were not in line with the College of General Dentistry’s good practice guidance about clinical examination and record keeping. Dental care records did not include risk assessments relating to risks of caries, periodontal disease, tooth surface loss or oral cancer. The practice offered dental implants. Staff had access to the appropriate equipment for the placement of implants. We found patient care records did not suitably reflect discussions with patients about the risks and benefits of dental implant treatments. Staff obtained patients’ verbal consent for treatment, but we did not see evidence that this was recorded in patient records or any forms of signed consent. Patients described how they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. We saw evidence the dentists did not always justify, grade and report on the radiographs they took, in line with Guidance notes for dental practitioners on the safe use of X-ray equipment issued by the College of General Dentistry. The practice had systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. Antimicrobial prescribing audits were not carried out. 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.