You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 21 February 2013
Date of Publication: 28 March 2013
Inspection Report published 28 March 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 21 February 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with 4 patients including some of their older children during the inspection. We were told: “I have had no problems. They always check my details”. ”We’ve been coming a long time. Never had a problem getting an emergency appointment” and “I have treatment under the NHS and they are really good”.

We observed in the patients' electronic records that medical information was comprehensive and had been regularly checked and updated at every visit. We were told by staff that verbal checks were also done with the patients on arrival, even if the appointment was for a check up and no treatment was being offered. We saw that allergy information was highlighted on patients' notes. This meant that patients were assessed and their records were updated and amended to reduce the risk of people receiving unsafe care.

We found that treatments were clearly documented and any diagnostics tests such as X rays that were carried out were recorded. Treatment plans were detailed and discussed with patients who were given copies. This meant that people received a full explanation about their treatment.

We saw that there was resuscitation and emergency equipment available in line with best practice guidance which was checked regularly. We found that all staff had received basic life support training in the last 12 months. This meant the provider had taken appropriate steps for dealing with foreseeable emergencies.

We did note however that the oxygen cylinder, which formed part of this equipment, had an expiry date of December 2012. This was brought to the attention of the manager during our visit. We did see evidence from a service contract that the cylinder had recently been serviced which suggested that the expiry date sticker had not been replaced with a new one. Since our inspection we have been informed that this situation has now been rectified. This had obviously been missed in the monthly checks since December. The provider may wish to note that it is their responsibility to make sure that all emergency equipment is in date.