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 be safe from harm from unsafe or unsuitable equipment (outcome 11)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are not at risk of harm from unsafe or unsuitable equipment (medical and non-medical equipment, furnishings or fittings).
  • Benefit from equipment that is comfortable and meets their needs.

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

People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.

Reasons for our judgement

The provider had access to a defibrillator, and records showed this was being properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's advice.We saw that staff were familiar with the operation of this equipment and also with the resuscitation and anaphylaxis policy.

Other emergency equipment such as a pulseoximeter; portable oxygen cylinder and a shock pack were properly maintained and a checklist was in place to ensure their availability before each surgical session.

The nursing staff we spoke with demonstrated a sound understanding of resuscitation techniques and were receiving annual updates in basic life support.

A store cupboard containing medical sundries and drugs was checked for stock rotation by the clinical director and the nurse advisor on a weekly basis. This was recorded.

The provider had shared access to a suitable laboratory fridge which was checked daily for correct temperature and proper calibration.

The provider's service and maintenance agreements were examined and all were up to date.

The operating table and light were of an appropriate standard and other areas such as the recovery room and scrub area were of the appropriate design and layout. There was adequate space in both the main clinical area and recovery to assist a person who may have experienced a reaction to a procedure.

The clinical director showed us evidence of regular risk assessments and the staff had been encouraged to participate in this process.

We discussed the process of dealing with medical device alerts with the clinical director, who outlined how these are actioned. Whilst the process appeared to be effective, there was no policy in place.The provider might find it useful to note that to produce such a policy would clarify the procedure for the benefit of other staff and for audit purposes.

The provider had made suitable arrangements to protect service users and others who may be at risk from the use of unsafe equipment by ensuring that equipment was properly maintained and used correctly.