You are here

Dr Miles Davidson Good Also known as Stubley Medical Centre

Reports


Inspection carried out on 21 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Miles Davidson on 14 October 2015. During that inspection we found that a disclosure and barring service (DBS) check had not been obtained for certain staff who acted as chaperones. Also, the practice had not obtained all employment checks required by law in regards to four staff files we checked. 

Overall the practice was rated as good with are services safe requiring improvement in view of the above. After the comprehensive inspection, the practice wrote to us to say what action they had taken to meet the legal requirement in relation to the above breach.

We undertook this desk based review on 21 October 2016 to check that the provider had completed the required improvements, and now met the legal requirement. We did not visit the practice as part of this inspection.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the above requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Dr Miles Davidson on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Our finding across the area we inspected was as follows:

  • The practice had taken appropriate action to meet the legal requirement.
  • The chaperone policy had been updated to require that an appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check is obtained for all staff who act as a chaperone.

  • Effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure the required employment checks and information is obtained prior to staff

    working at the practice.

  • The practice had obtained an appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check for all staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 14 October 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Miles Davidson on 14 October 2015. During that inspection we found that a disclosure and barring service (DBS) check had not been obtained for certain staff who acted as chaperones. Also, the practice had not obtained all employment checks required by law in regards to four staff files we checked. 

Overall the practice was rated as good with are services safe requiring improvement in view of the above. After the comprehensive inspection, the practice wrote to us to say what action they had taken to meet the legal requirement in relation to the above breach.

We undertook this desk based review on 21 October 2016 to check that the provider had completed the required improvements, and now met the legal requirement. We did not visit the practice as part of this inspection.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the above requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Dr Miles Davidson on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Our finding across the area we inspected was as follows:

  • The practice had taken appropriate action to meet the legal requirement.
  • The chaperone policy had been updated to require that an appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check is obtained for all staff who act as a chaperone.

  • Effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure the required employment checks and information is obtained prior to staff

    working at the practice.

  • The practice had obtained an appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check for all staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

CQC Insight

These reports bring together existing national data from a range of indicators that allow us to identify and monitor changes in the quality of care outside of our inspections. The data within the reports do not constitute a judgement on performance, but inform our inspection teams. Our judgements on quality and safety continue to come only after inspection and we will not make judgements on data alone.