Corby Private Medical Centre

We carried out this announced inspection on 07 September 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by two CQC inspectors who were supported by a specialist dental adviser, a specialist GP adviser and a Polish/English speaking interpreter.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this practice was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this practice was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this practice was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this practice was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this practice was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Corby Private Medical Centre is located in Corby, a town and borough in the county of Northamptonshire. It provides private treatment to adults and children.

Level access is not available for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs.

The centre does not have its own parking facilities, but free public car parking is available next to the premises, in close proximity to the entrance.

The dental team includes four dentists, two trainee dental nurses, two customer advisors, and two practice managers.

The team also includes three medical / specialist practitioners.

Corby Private Medical Centre provides mainly dental services. It also provides GP services (Family medicine) and gynaecology services.

The practice has one dental treatment room and one medical treatment room.

The provider told us that the majority of their patients were from the Polish community, and lived in Corby or surrounding border areas such as Kettering and Peterborough. We were informed that some patients had NHS registrations with other practices whilst others did not and had chosen to attend this practice to be seen as a privately registered patient.

We have produced a separate report that contains our findings in relation to the general practice and gynaecological services provided at this location. This report focuses on the provision of dental services provided at the practice.

The practice is owned by a company and as a condition of registration must have a person registered with the Care Quality Commission as the registered manager. Registered managers have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run. The registered managers at Corby Private Medical Centre are the two practice managers who share the responsibilities between them.

On the day of inspection we collected seven CQC comment cards filled in by patients and spoke with three other patients.

During the inspection we spoke with one dentist, one trainee dental nurse, two customer advisors, and the practice managers. We looked at practice policies and procedures, patient feedback and other records about how the service is managed.

The practice is open: Monday to Friday from 10am to 8pm, Saturday from 9am to 9pm and Sunday from 10am to 7pm. Patients are not allocated appointments on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Our key findings were:

• The practice appeared clean and well maintained.
• The provider had infection control procedures which mostly reflected published guidance.
• Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Most appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available. We noted exceptions in relation to oropharyngeal airways, a child self-inflating bag with reservoir and clear face masks. Buccal Midazolam was not held. Following our inspection, these items were obtained.
• The practice had systems to help them manage risk to patients and staff. We noted that some processes required strengthening as the risk to legionella had not been addressed promptly when identified.
• The practice staff had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
• The provider had thorough staff recruitment procedures.
• Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in line with current guidelines.
• Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
• The provider was providing preventive care and supporting patients to ensure better oral health.
• The appointment system met patients’ needs.
• The practice had effective leadership and culture of continuous improvement.
• Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
• The practice asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
• The provider had systems to deal with complaints efficiently.
• The provider had suitable information governance arrangements; although we noted areas that could be strengthened.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements. They should:

• Review the practice's protocols for completion of dental care records taking into account the guidance provided by the Faculty of General Dental Practice.
• Review the practice’s systems for assessing, monitoring and mitigating the various risks arising from the undertaking of the regulated activities, ensuring all risks presented are mitigated expeditiously.
• Review the practice's current performance review systems and have an effective process established for the on-going assessment and supervision of all staff.
• Consider documenting all team meetings to facilitate learning for all staff.

We carried out an announced inspection on 07 September 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations.The inspection was led by two CQC inspectors who were supported by a specialist dental adviser, a specialist GP adviser and a Polish/English speaking interpreter.

We have produced a separate report that contains our findings in relation to the dental services provided at this location. This report focuses on the provision of general practice and gynaecological services.

Corby Private Medical Centre provides mainly dental services. However, it also provides GP services (family medicine) and gynaecology services.

We were told that the majority of patients were from the Polish community and lived in Corby or surrounding border areas such as Kettering and Peterborough. We were informed that some patients had NHS registrations with other practices whilst others did not and had chosen to attend this practice to be seen privately.

The service is located on the first floor of a residential building. Level access is not available for people who use wheelchairs and those with pushchairs. However, relevant patients are signposted to other services. The service does not have its own parking facilities, but free public car parking is available near the premises.

The practice has one dental treatment room and one medical treatment room. During the inspection we spoke with a GP (female), two reception staff and both practice managers. We looked at practice policies and procedures, patient feedback and other records about how the service is managed.

On the day of inspection, we collected seven CQC comment cards filled in by patients and spoke with three other patients.

The service is owned by a company and as a condition of registration must have a person registered with the Care Quality Commission as the registered manager. Registered managers have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the practice is run. The registered managers at Corby Private Medical Centre are the two practice managers who share the responsibilities between them.

The service is open Monday to Friday from 10am to 8pm, Saturday from 9am to 9pm and Sunday from 10am to 7pm. For patients seeking general medical appointments and gynaecology services, appointments were available once weekly.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Our key findings were:

• There were systems in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.
• There were systems in place for the management of significant events and incidents. Risks to patients were assessed and managed.
• The premises appeared well maintained. There were systems in place to support infection, prevention and control and for managing the safety of equipment.
• There were arrangements for the safe management of medicines and recruitment of staff. Staff were supported with their learning and development needs and had access to training.
• There was evidence of audits undertaken to ensure the quality of service against policies and procedures.
• Patient information was shared as appropriate with relevant health and care professionals involved in the patients care and treatment and patients were informed.
• Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
• The provider had effective systems for obtaining consent to care and treatment in relation to general practice services provided.
• Feedback from people about the service they received was positive. People who had used the service felt involved in decisions and said they were treated with dignity and respect.
• People who used the service received timely care.
• There was a complaints process in place and available on the provider website.
• There were established governance arrangements and clear leadership to support the running of the service. Minutes of meetings did not demonstrate that meetings were held regularly. Staff told us that they had meetings but were held regularly but not always recorded to enable sharing of information.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Review the practice’s systems for assessing, monitoring and mitigating the various risks arising from the undertaking of the regulated activities. In particular, ensure that risks identified such as those presented by legionella are mitigated effectively.
• Review the appraisal process to ensure all staff undergo appraisals.
• Consider recording all team meetings to facilitate learning for all staff.