Somerset Ear Microsuction

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People felt supported to raise concerns and felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding. Safety was a top priority. The service had processes to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support. The service reviewed people’s feedback for learning and improvement. For example, the service noticed that people were unnecessarily queuing at the GP service reception to sign in. To solve this problem, the service displayed a notice informing them that sign-in was not required and that a member of staff would collect them from the waiting area at their scheduled appointment time.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients. The service stored clinical records securely using electronic systems which were password protected. Staff signposted or referred people to other services, such as their GPs, when needed. The service shared clinical records with healthcare partners when requested to support continuity of care.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Safeguarding policy for children and adults was in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. Staff knew how to share concerns quickly and appropriately.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Emergency equipment, emergency medicines and oxygen were readily available from the GP service that the microsuction service operated. There was an agreement allowing them to use these items when required. The GP service was responsible for maintaining them and performing regular checks to ensure they were ready for use in an emergency. Staff were suitably trained in emergency procedures. Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take.

The service provided after care information both verbally and through its website, ensuring people knew who to contact if they had any concerns following treatment. However, written information on after care was not available.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Electrical equipment was tested to ensure it was safe to use, and the equipment was calibrated for accuracy. The service carried out a detailed risk assessment specific to the microsuction procedure. There was a business continuity plan which was monitored and reviewed.

The service had their own fire and health and safety policies. Building maintenance, including fire and health and safety was the responsibility of the GP service from which the microsuction service operated. The service provided evidence of regular fire risk assessments. However, the service could not access the relevant health and safety risk assessment records from the GP service during the onsite visit. Following the assessment, the service completed and submitted their own health and safety risk assessment and risks identified had been addressed. The service also told us they would start to attend daily catch-up and monthly practice meetings of the GP service to improve oversight of potential risks in the care environment.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Safe recruitment practices were followed. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references, a criminal records check and information on physical and mental health that were relevant to their roles.

We found training was up to date and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. The 2 staff received peer support from each other and carried out regular clinical record audits to monitor quality of service and identify learning. However, there was a lack of formal appraisal or clinical supervision process. Following the assessment, the service developed an annual appraisal process to identify areas for development. They also arranged for competency assessments and reflective practice to take place with clinicians from a different service.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service had a designated infection, prevention and control (IPC) lead and all staff had had relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. IPC audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks. The environment was visibly clean and tidy during our onsite visit. Personal protective equipment was available to staff, and the room was equipped with hand-washing facilities. The service disposed of single-use items safely. Clinical waste was stored appropriately.

Somerset Ear Microsuction is an independent health service, providing private ear wax removal service by microsuction. The service did not order, store, prescribe or administer medicines to people. This quality statement is not relevant for this service.