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

The service had improving systems of accountability and governance to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. The service now had a risk register and processes in place for emergencies.

However, the service was in breach of regulation for good governance. Recording around audits did not show what action was being taken to address concerns. The service did not monitor when equipment needed to be replaced.

This service scored 7 (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.

The service had improving systems of accountability and governance to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. However, these processes needed more development and time to be embedded into practice.

>

The service now had a risk register in place which included all relevant risks to the service and mitigation in place to prevent harm.

>

The registered manager conducted routine clinical audits. The service owner communicated learning from audits to the clinicians, however there was no clear recording of action taken by staff to change practice especially when the issue had arisen on more than one occasion. The medicines audits were not robust and needed strengthening.

>

The service had a process in place for monitoring when equipment needed servicing, however there was no oversight of when equipment needed replacing in line with the manufacturer's warranty, e.g. blood pressure monitors and pulse oximeters.

>

The service had not considered that it may be misleading in its use of the title "practice nurse" when the role is currently occupied by a healthcare assistant who does not have a formal qualification as a nurse and does not undertake clinical duties unsupervised. While the term nurse is not a protected title in the UK, we believe that this title may be misleading to the general public and those that are treated by the service.

>

The service had no contingency planning in place for when the healthcare assistant was absent from work. This meant that no procedures were performed during these times and consultants were limited to consultations only. This meant that there was a risk that appointments would be cancelled at short notice.

The service was unable to demonstrate how they decided what needed to be mandatory training for staff to complete. The service had not kept up to date with the Health and Social Care Act 2022 which states that providers must ensure their staff receive learning disability and autism training that is ‘appropriate to the person's role'. Since this assessment, the provider has assured us that learning and autism training has been completed by all staff.

>

The service had plans for emergencies for example, adverse weather or a flu outbreak.

>

The service had good governance arrangements regarding the documentation and assurances for consultants to work in the service on practicing privileges. All clinicians working from the service provided copies of their malpractice insurance document, GMC or other governing body registration. Clinicians kept the provider up to date with evidence of their training with particular regard to child and adult safeguarding and BLS training. This was a requirement for being able to continue practicing in the service and was stipulated in the clinical governance policy.

>

>

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.