The Care Quality Commission

Archived: Mr James Main

3 Lambrook Street, Glastonbury, Somerset, BA6 8BY (01458) 831883

Provided and run by:
Mr. James Main

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

10 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection on 2 April 2012 we found that the registered person was non compliant in three outcomes.

We saw there were no clear systems for the management of medicines and the emergency equipment. We found staff had not received training in the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults or the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found there were inadequate practices of infection control through inappropriately tested equipment and documentary evidence of described practices.

We received a provider action plan on 30 May 2012 and visited the service on 10 January 2013 to follow up the compliance actions.

We found that the provider had taken action to ensure that the service was compliant. We saw there were appropriate systems in place for the management of medicines. Staff spoken with demonstrated they had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults along with training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its application in practice.

We found the provider had taken action to ensure the service was compliant with the requirements of Department of Health guidance HTM 01-05. We saw the provider had changed the practices used for decontamination of dental instruments to meet the requirements. We saw records had been maintained to evidence appropriate testing of equipment and decontamination practices undertaken in the practice.

We judged the service was now compliant for these outcomes.

3 April 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the practice and they told us they were very happy with the service provided. They felt they were given enough information about their treatment options and relevant fees as well as time to ask questions in order to make an informed decision.

One person told us 'they had been recommended to the practice and they would recommend it to others'. Another person told us the 'family all come and we are very happy with the service.' Two other people told us they found the practice friendly and that appointments were booked in advance. They also said that if an emergency appointment was needed there was never any problem in making one.

Another person said they were 'happy with everything'. They had been recommended the practice and found the nurses and receptionists to be helpful. They also said treatment was explained clearly to them and they felt the practice was clean. All people felt confident and comfortable with the practice staff.

The practice had systems in place for the decontamination of instruments. However there was no evidence to confirm that systems were adhered to and practices carried out to ensure the prevention of the spread of infection for the protection of people who used the service. Staff had been trained to follow infection prevention and control precautions.

The practice had disabled access via a temporary ramp that could be put in place to get over the step into the property. Once in the surgery the facilities offered by the practice were all on one level. In a recent survey of people's views we were told 'the access path to the practice is too steep and needs a handrail'.

People were not protected from abuse through regular staff training and awareness in protecting vulnerable adults, children and young people. Staff were not aware of how to protect people through the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.