Pee Paediatric Services

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a positive culture of safety and safety was overseen by the nurse practitioner.

An incident recording book was held onsite; there had not been any incidents to report in the previous 12 months.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients. We reviewed five patient records and saw that these were appropriately completed including demographic details, medical history, details of consultation, treatment, and follow up care plan.

The service had a safeguarding policy, and the nurse practitioner had appropriate safeguarding training. They demonstrated an awareness of safeguarding and when to raise a concern. Details of the local authority safeguarding team were on display.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

A first aid kit was available and maintained. Any risks to treatment were discussed with parents.

At the time of our inspection, the service did not have a formal waste‑disposal contract in place; however, afterward, the nurse practitioner provided evidence that this had since been established. Medical devices used in the clinic were serviced annually.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. There was a business continuity plan in place which had a review date set.

The service was run by a sole nurse practitioner who was qualified, skilled and experienced. They received effective support and supervision from an external colleague.

We found training was up to date, learning needs, and development was managed appropriately, and the nurse practitioner was working within their area of competence.

We saw that the environment and equipment were kept clean. The nurse practitioner used single-use wipes for surfaces and equipment, which were wiped down between patients. Hand hygiene processes were in place, and they used single-use gloves when handling the uroflowmetry equipment.

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. There was no formal cleaning schedule in place, and no IPC audits were undertaken. However, in the week following our inspection the service provided evidence to show a cleaning schedule and hand hygiene audit had been put in place.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The nurse practitioner told us they usually advised conservative measures initially, such as monitoring and regulating fluid intake, monitoring urine output, and eliminating potential bladder irritants such as fizzy drinks and certain foods. If there was no improvement in 2-4 weeks, they would consider bringing in bladder relaxant medication.

Medication was usually recommended to the patient’s GP and prescribed by them rather than the nurse practitioner.

Patients and carers knew what to do and who to contact if they experienced any unexpected symptoms.