You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 June 2012
Date of Publication: 24 July 2012
Inspection Report published 24 July 2012 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

Our judgement

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

The provider was meeting this standard.

User experience

People we spoke with by telephone following our visit told us that the premises were always clean and that they were offered preventative advice during treatment.

We were told that the service communicates well and that appointment reminders are always sent by text and e mail to ensure that people using the service did not miss their appointment.

Other evidence

During our inspection we examined two examples of computerised care plans maintained for people using the service. The care records included full details of the individual’s medical and social history and included a regular review of the person’s medical status which was updated where necessary.

We saw that the records also contained details of all medicines used during treatment with batch numbers recorded. This information would be used to ensure the well being of the person in the event of a medicines alert.

Within the computerised care records were details of treatments planned and discussed as well as a record of agreement to treatment by the person receiving treatment.

We found that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

As part of our inspection we examined the system used by the service to report and record accidents or adverse incidents. We found that a robust reporting and recording system in place using an Accident / Incident Book. Records of incidents or accidents were fully recorded with any follow up actions or changes to procedure or policy noted within the accident record.

Staff meeting records were also seen and found to be fully recorded in minutes of each meeting. Meetings were seen to have taken place approximately every two months and matters arising with actions taken were recorded.

While at the service we inspected staff training records. These showed that all staff at the practice had received initial and ongoing treatment in basic life support from an external training provider.

The service was able to provide us with the practice emergency plan for both medical and fire emergencies. The practice maintains an emergency medicines box containing all recommended medicines, as well as an emergency oxygen cylinder and masks. These were checked and found to be in date and expiry dates were accurately recorded in a separate file. We were told that the medicines are supplied by an external provider who also records expiry dates and sends appropriate reminders and supplies when medicines expire.

Full risk assessments were maintained by the service and these included assessments of legionella risk, fire, health & safety, and an evacuation plan. Throughout our inspection we found that there were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

The service’s policies and procedures were maintained within an easy to follow filing system. We were, as a result, able to easily locate all policies and procedures during our inspection. We noted that each policy or procedure was accompanied by a signature sheet, signed by staff to acknowledge that they had read and understood the contents of the document.

We read the service’s policy in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) which gave clear guidance to staff. It included advice on the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLs) and the legal requirements of the legislation relating to both MCA and DoLs. The policy was signed by all staff.

The records viewed indicated that the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were only used when it was considered to be in the person’s best interest.