You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 14 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This unannounced inspection was to follow up on compliance actions set at the previous inspection in November 2012. These compliance actions were set because the provider did not have systems in place to ensure that people�s consent was sought prior to receiving treatment. We also found that there were not effective systems in place to enable people to raise a comment, concern or complaint about the service.

At this inspection we spoke with three people and five members of staff including the manager.

People told us the service was �very professional�, �Prompt and very good�, and �Very good at explaining to me�.

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We found that there was an effective complaints system in place. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

Inspection carried out on 14 November 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection we spoke with three members of the clinical team, senior managers; receptionists in both clinics and the administrator. Everyone we spoke with was helpful and enthusiastic about the service the college provided and conducted themselves in a professional and confident manner. We were told that they were able to provide adequate clinical and support staff to cover the clinics and arrangements were in place to cover for sickness or absence.

Everyone having diagnostic and screening procedures at the Anglo European College of Chiropractic was required to sign a consent form and we discussed with staff the process for obtaining consent. The clinical staff we asked were unable to describe how they would assess the capacity of people using the service to give consent to the procedures provided in the clinics. We looked at the information available to people and observed it did not always clearly identify the risks.

All members of staff we spoke to were unclear about the complaints procedure and how the college investigated and managed complaints. One information leaflet was posted in the Clinic for Ultrasound Studies. Staff were unable to provide any other written information for people using the service. The manager confirmed that there was no audit of complaints received and that they were not aware of the total number of complaints received by the clinics.

We observed that the diagnostic and screening equipment was maintained by the college.