You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 March 2015
Date of Publication: 11 April 2015
Inspection Report published 11 April 2015 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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 18 March 2015, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients receive.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of patients who use the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

Patients who used the service were asked for their views about their care and they were acted on. We looked at a copy of the latest patient satisfaction survey which sought the views of patients registered at the practice, selected at random. We found a very high satisfaction rate overall. The survey also found that 85% of patients would recommend the practice to family and friends.

The practice took account of complaints and comments to improve the service and explained how complaints would be dealt with. The patients we spoke with felt they could make a complaint if they needed and would be listened to.

We examined the complaints policy and procedures and found they included clear guidelines on how and by when issues should be resolved. They also contained the contact details of external agencies, such as the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS), the Parliamentary Health Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission. However, the practice may wish to note the Care Quality Commission does not investigate individual complaints. The complaints procedure was displayed in waiting areas and on the practice's website. There had been no recent complaints made. Our conversations with patients and staff indicated a culture of openness in which patients could raise issues of importance to them.

We looked at copies of a range of audits recently completed by the practice. These were measured against the essential standards of quality and safety and were in areas such as clinical record keeping, patient waiting times and patients' preferred method of pain control. We noted that a remedial action plan, devised at practice meetings was enacted whenever issues were identified as a result of these audits.