MICAS

This service is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Battersea Healthcare Community Interest Company (BHCIC) on 29 June 2022 as part of our inspection programme. BHCIC first registered with CQC in April 2013. Since that time they have moved location and changed their registered manager. This is the first inspection of this service since the registration changes.

Battersea Healthcare Community Interest Company provide a Musculoskeletal Interface Clinical Assessment Service (MICAS) who provide care to patients with complex musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions who require further investigations, have overlapping symptoms and/or are patients that have not responded to self-management and physiotherapy previously.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Battersea Healthcare Community Interest Company is registered in respect of the provision of treatment of diseases, disorder or injury; diagnostic and screening procedures. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the clinical consultations, examinations and treatments in musculoskeletal medicine.

The head of contract delivery and service manager are the registered managers. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

• There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and monitored.
• There was a system in place to receive safety alerts issued by government departments such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
• Staff had the skills, knowledge, and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence-based guidance.
• To ensure and monitor the quality of the service, the service completed audits which showed the effectiveness of the service.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
• The service held a range of policies and procedures which were in place to govern activity; staff were able to access these policies.
• We saw there was leadership within the service and the team worked together in a cohesive, supported, and open manner.
• The service proactively sought feedback from patients, which it acted on.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Provide sepsis and chaperone training for all members of staff.
• Consider stocking an anaphylaxis kit for medical emergencies and a spill kit.
• Review recommendations from risk assessments so actions can be put in place where necessary.
• Provide protected time for staff to complete training.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services