Archived: The Oving Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed 1 quality statements from this key question. Systems to ensure risks were mitigated to improve the health and safety of patients were not in place. There was a breach of the regulations relating to governance, as the provider had failed to have effective systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the services being provided. Systems and processes were not established to ensure standards of care and treatment were safe. Systems were not assessed, monitored to mitigate risks and make improvements to the quality of experience to patients.

This service scored 4 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

Governance arrangements that ensure risks were assessed and monitored were not always effective. Policies and procedures on how the standards of care and treatment were maintained were not always clear or regularly reviewed to ensure they were within current good practice. Processes for assessing and monitoring the safe and effective care and treatment to patients and for improving performance of staff were not in place.

Systems to monitor staff performance was not embedded into practice. For example, team meetings and individual supervision. Staff were clear about their roles they were to perform and there were ad hoc discussions during the induction for health care staff. Records of appraisal, training and note taking audits were not kept by the provider and visiting doctors. The provider, subsequent to the assessment, confirmed that they will be introducing supervision and re-introducing appraisals. Some of the equipment was not regularly checked to ensure they were operating effectively or within manufactures guidance. For example, fire risk assessments were not completed, and some equipment kept in the emergency bag was out of date. Medicine systems were not always safe. The provider had not ensured staff were fully competent in specific roles assigned to them. For example, medicine training for auditing medicine stocks. Medicines were not checked, and we found stocks of expired medicines. We also found medicines for personal used kept in the same medicine cabinet used for patients. We were contacted about an incident where a patient was exposed to significant risk of avoidable harm. The incident related to unsafe medicines administration which indicated potential concerns about the management of risk. This incident is subject to further investigation by CQC as to whether any regulatory action should be taken. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.