You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 October 2013
Date of Publication: 5 November 2013
Inspection Report published 05 November 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 3 October 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

We looked at the cleanliness of the environment and the infection control procedures in place.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

During our inspection of Riverbanks Clinic on 3 October 2013, the people we spoke with told us their medical histories, including allergies and medications, were checked as part of their pre-procedure consultations. They said the information was checked by the nurse who went through it with them. One person said of her overall care and welfare: "It all feels so professional. I'm delighted with what's been achieved. Even the pain I was expecting didn't happen."

We looked at the care documentation of the people we spoke with. Each of the files contained a medical history, including details of any allergies experienced or medication taken, completed as part of the pre-procedure process. Each person had been assessed for their risk of such things as pressure ulcers and venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis) and the documentation was well completed. For those who had undergone surgery, surgical care pathways (records of care, wellbeing and observation maintained throughout each person's surgical procedure) were well completed. This meant that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

During our observations, we saw the service maintained items for use in an emergency including oxygen, a defibrillator and emergency drugs such as adrenaline. All of the items we checked were within their expiry dates. We spoke with the doctor and nurse at the service who said they had attended immediate life support (ILS) training. The doctor said as he had just been in September 2013, he had not received the certificate at the time of our inspection. We looked at the nurse's staff file and saw a certificate confirming her attendance at life support training in August 2013. This meant there were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.