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 have their complaints listened to and acted on properly (outcome 17)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are sure that their comments and complaints are listened to and acted on effectively.
  • Know that they will not be discriminated against for making a complaint.

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

There was an effective complaints system available.

Reasons for our judgement

During our inspection of Riverbanks Clinic on 3 October 2013, we saw the service had a complaints policy in place. The policy detailed the full complaints process, including staff responsibilities, timescales and how people could take their complaints further if they were not happy with the service's response. We saw that the complaints procedure was detailed in the patient guide and client information pack; a copy of which was available in the main waiting area. This meant people were made aware of the complaints system.This was provided in a format that met their needs.

We spoke with some of the people using the service at the time of our inspection. They told us they had no complaints about the service. Those that said they had any minor concerns that arose during their treatment or consultations told us they were dealt with immediately by the doctor and they'd been very satisfied with his response. Others said they had no concerns at all, but would feel comfortable raising them at any point if they needed to.

We spoke with the doctor about a written complaint received by the service in June 2013. This related to a person who was unhappy with the outcome of her treatment. The doctor told us he had met with the person and agreed to a revision procedure at no additional expense. We also looked at the complaints log maintained by the service. The log detailed each complaint received and the outcome, including such things as refunded costs. This meant people’s complaints were fully investigated and resolved, where possible, to their satisfaction.

We spoke with the doctor and practice manager about how the log was not accompanied by copies of written communication between the service and complainants. They told us this was because the service preferred to resolve complaints informally where possible. The provider may find it useful to note that although the informal approach did not impact on the resolution of complaints received at the service, it did contradict the formal process detailed in their complaints policy.