You are here

Care UK – Wycombe Minor Injuries and Illness Unit Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 September 2017

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Care UK – Wycombe Minor Injuries and Illness Unit on 13 December 2016. The overall rating for the service was requires improvement. Specifically the service was rated good for provision of effective, caring and responsive services and requires improvement for provision of safe and well-led services. The full comprehensive report on the December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Care UK – Wycombe Minor Injuries and Illness Unit on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 26 September 2017 to confirm that the service had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 13 December 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.Overall the service is now rated as good overall with provision of both safe and well-led services re-rated to good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Reception staff had been trained to undertake initial assessment of priority for walk in patients and followed an assessment protocol. Clinical staff were available to support the assessment process when needed. The provider was in the process of recruiting clinical navigators to support initial assessment and the recording of baseline clinical measurements for walk in patients.
  • Information about how to make a complaint was carried in the vehicles used to carry staff to home visits.
  • Prescribing of high risk medicines followed the providers prescribing policy and there were checks in place to ensure this happened.
  • Performance in relation to national quality requirements was improving.
  • Blank prescriptions were held safely and there was a system to track them through to issuing.
  • A system was in place to monitor the training and appraisals of sub-contracted staff. The system also gave the provider assurance that staff maintained their professional registrations and updated their Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) checks. (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 13 December 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Care UK – Wycombe Minor Injuries and Illness Unit on 13 December 2016. The overall rating for the service was requires improvement. Specifically the service was rated good for provision of effective, caring and responsive services and requires improvement for provision of safe and well-led services. The full comprehensive report on the December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Care UK – Wycombe Minor Injuries and Illness Unit on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 26 September 2017 to confirm that the service had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 13 December 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.Overall the service is now rated as good overall with provision of both safe and well-led services re-rated to good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Reception staff had been trained to undertake initial assessment of priority for walk in patients and followed an assessment protocol. Clinical staff were available to support the assessment process when needed. The provider was in the process of recruiting clinical navigators to support initial assessment and the recording of baseline clinical measurements for walk in patients.
  • Information about how to make a complaint was carried in the vehicles used to carry staff to home visits.
  • Prescribing of high risk medicines followed the providers prescribing policy and there were checks in place to ensure this happened.
  • Performance in relation to national quality requirements was improving.
  • Blank prescriptions were held safely and there was a system to track them through to issuing.
  • A system was in place to monitor the training and appraisals of sub-contracted staff. The system also gave the provider assurance that staff maintained their professional registrations and updated their Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) checks. (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 26 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who used the service. They told us they were treated with respect and had been able to ask any questions they wanted to. They said they were given advice about what they needed to do after treatment. They were all very positive about the way the service operated.

The staff team included trained reception cover, clinical staff and management support. Clinical staff comprised advanced nurse practitioners who provided rapid clinical assessment to patients who attended MIIU. Advanced nurse practitioners also carried out some treatment. There were also emergency nurse practitioners and general practitioners who carried out consultations and provided treatment. This meant there was an effective system of initial information collection and patient assessment in place followed by treatment or advice provided in the most appropriate and effective way.

We were told regular reviews of care and treatment took place and staff undertook systematic clinical audits. There was evidence that learning from incidents took place and appropriate changes were implemented.

There was a policy in place and being followed to manage risks. Incidents were recorded, monitored and responded to appropriately. Staff understood the responsibility to report serious incidents and adverse events to the Care Quality Commission and other bodies. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service.