You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 February 2014
Date of Publication: 29 March 2014
Inspection Report published 29 March 2014 PDF | 76.33 KB

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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 8 February 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at the records of the eight people who had attended for surgery on the day. Each of these contained a referral letter from the GP, including, with one exception, a clear indication of why a sterilisation was required. The documentation also included specific patient focused health care questions that functioned as an initial triage system.

We saw that the appointment process was smooth and responsive. Both people we spoke with were impressed they had been contacted so quickly by the clinic following their initial GP consultation.

As part of the initial appointment pack, people received material covering areas such as the location of the service, a copy of the consent form for information only and details relating to the procedure and their care following surgery. Two weeks following their procedure, people are sent a satisfaction questionnaire.This data was used to highlight good practice, as well as to evaluate where adjustments might be needed.

We saw evidence of audits carried out on the pre-surgery assessment data.This was used in a positive way, by highlighting good practice and identifying action points for improvement where necessary.

We also saw that those people who did not attend their appointment were managed positively, as was the follow up process for providing a semen sample. In such circumstances, three reminder letters were sent to the person and their GP would also be included.

Whilst only happening on a very infrequent basis, we saw the three significant events highlighted had been dealt with promptly and effectively. This process had involved all members of the clinical team, including consultants.

There had been no written complaints regarding the service since the last inspection.

We spoke with the consultant urologist who was conducting the vasectomy clinic on the day. They felt very comfortable in the clinic environment and valued the support of the nursing team. Through their NHS role, they were able to keep up to date through annual Urology Society meetings and local continuing professional development updates. They had recently received refresher training in areas such as safeguarding, fire and proper note taking. On examining their personal file, all documentation, including medical defence insurance, criminal records checks, General Medical Council membership and revalidation were available.

We spoke with the clinical director and three of the staff. They demonstrated a sound understanding of how people's care and treatment was assessed and delivered in accordance with their care plan and current guidelines.The staff were familiar with emergency procedures and had recently received refresher training in basic life support skills. They were also familiar with the provider's resuscitation and anaphylaxis policy.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare.