You are here

Archived: Brent Urgent Care Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 June 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Brent Urgent Care Centre (Care UK Clinical services Limited) on 16 March 2016. Overall the service is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place to report and record significant events. Staff knew how to raise concerns and understood the need to report incidents.
  • All incidents were recorded on the electronic incident recording system which enabled an organisation-wide overview. Learning was based on a thorough analysis and investigation of any errors and incidents.
  • The provider maintained a risk register and held regular local and organisational governance meetings. Staff demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities and all had received training on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults relevant to their role.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the service complied with these requirements.
  • The service had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Although the provider demonstrated a good understanding of the service’s performance and was meeting the majority of its performance targets, it had failed to achieve for a 12-month period the performance target to triage and determine the care pathways for children and adults within the specified timeframes.
  • Patient feedback indicated that patients were treated with care and respect and were involved in decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The service was accessible 24 hours every day. Patient feedback was positive about the ease of using the service and time taken to receive treatment.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure at organisational and local level and staff told us they felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure failing performance targets are monitored and improved to mitigate the risks to the health and safety of patients receiving care and treatment.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure all staff understand, and continue to understand, the fire evacuation plan.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 June 2017

The service is rated as good for providing safe services.

  • From the sample of documented examples we reviewed, we found there was an effective system for reporting and recording significant events; lessons were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the service. When things went wrong patients were informed as soon as practicable, received reasonable support, truthful information, and a written apology. They were told about any actions to improve processes to prevent the same thing happening again.
  • The service had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and services to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities and all had received training on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults relevant to their role.
  • The service had adequate arrangements to respond to emergencies and major incidents.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 27 June 2017

The service is rated as requires improvement for providing effective services.

  • Although the provider demonstrated a good understanding of the service’s performance and was meeting the majority of its performance targets, the service had failed to achieve for a 12-month period the target of 95% to triage and determine the care pathway for children within 15 minutes of arrival and 20 minutes for adults.
  • Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.
  • Staff worked with other health care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 June 2017

The service is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.
  • The service received consistently positive patient feedback from its monthly survey.
  • Patients who we spoke with and those who completed comments cards said that the provider offered an excellent, prompt and efficient service and that staff were helpful and caring.
  • Information for patients about the services available was accessible and available in several languages.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 June 2017

The service is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • The provider reviewed the needs of patients and engaged with the clinical commissioning group to secure improvements to services where these were identified.
  • The urgent care centre was open 24 hours a day and seven days a week. It was accessible to patients with mobility difficulties. There were accessible facilities, an induction hearing loop and interpreter services.
  • Children were assessed as a priority and the facility had designated children’s seating and treatment area. Baby changing and breast feeding facilities were available.
  • The majority of the feedback from patients we spoke with and the comment cards indicated that the provider ran a prompt service.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand and evidence showed the provider responded promptly and openly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff, organisation-wide and with other stakeholders.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 June 2017

The service is rated as good for being well-led.

  • The provider had a clear vision and strategy to deliver high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients attending the urgent care centre.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service had policies and procedures to govern activity and held regular governance meetings.
  • An overarching governance framework supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.
  • Staff had received inductions, annual performance reviews and attended staff meetings and training opportunities.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour.
  • The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients and we saw examples where feedback had been acted on.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels.