You are here

Archived: Dr Berk Private GP Surgery

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 October 2013
Date of Publication: 5 December 2013
Inspection Report published 05 December 2013 PDF | 86.04 KB

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 22 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People’s privacy and dignity were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their treatment and care.

Reasons for our judgement

The doctor showed us the consulting room where people were seen and where examinations were undertaken. We did not observe treatment and care being given to people but we were able to see that both the doctor and the receptionist spoke to people respectfully when greeting them and when talking to people on the phone.

We saw the chaperone policy that was in operation at the service. It stated that people would be told that there is only a male doctor available at the surgery and that people were welcome to bring someone with them if they wished to do this. We spoke to the receptionist who confirmed that this was explained to people when they first rang the service for an appointment. The receptionist said that they were able to act in this capacity if an unaccompanied person wished them to do so. This showed that people were treated with courtesy and their concerns about how treatment was delivered were taken account of.

We saw the written information made available to people about the service. We were given a copy of a booklet for people which outlined the key specialisms of the practice, its opening times, location and information about what people using the service should do in an emergency. The doctor explained that everyone using the service was given a written contract to sign. We saw a copy of this and saw that it set out the range of services available and the conditions under which they were provided. We saw a file containing the contracts and that these had been signed and dated by people using the service. We were also shown information sheets containing further details about the service including the credentials of the doctor, the fees that would be charged and the surgery's complaints procedure. We asked the receptionist whether people were given these. The receptionist said the information sheets were not routinely given out to people but might be given to new patients. Information about the complaints procedure and fees were also on display in the waiting room. This showed that sufficient information was available about the services.

We were told that most of the people using the service were Turkish speakers who did not speak or read English very well. We observed four patients in the waiting room whilst we were at the service and heard that their English was limited. We noted that the written information available about the service was only provided in English. We asked the receptionist about this. We were told that the documents were not available in other languages, which may have meant that some people did not have full access to all relevant information in a way they could understand.

We spoke to two patients and another person's relative who said they had sufficient information about the services on offer. One person said that the practice was well known within the Turkish community and they accessed information about it on an internet blog. Another person said ‘The doctor is well known to people in the area. He has a good reputation.’ They told us that they came to the surgery because they felt confident that the doctor would advise them on the issues that they came here for and would tell them what treatment they needed. This showed that people had sufficient information about the services available to meet their needs as they saw them.

We asked the doctor how he ensured that people understood their treatment and the options available to them. We were told that many people came to the service because they spoke Turkish. We were also told that people were welcome to bring someone with them to help them explain their needs to the doctor and to help them understand their diagnosis and the advice and treatment options available. We observed that a number of people were accompanied by a relative for this purpose.

The doctor told us that following assessment and diagnosis that he took care to carefully explain people’s medical conditions to them. He gave us examples about how he might put things in