You are here

The London Podiatry Centre Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 November 2019

We rated this service as

Good

overall.

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed incidents well and learned lessons from them.

Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care and had access to good information.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients and their families.

The service took account of patients’ individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait long for treatment.

Leaders ran services well using electronic information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

Services for children and young people were a small proportion of the centre’s activity and most of the treatments undertaken were out of the scope of this inspection. We have not rated this service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 November 2019

We rated safe as Good because:

  • We found clearly defined and embedded systems, reliable processes and procedures to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse. These were reviewed regularly, and safeguarding was well understood by all staff.
  • Staff received effective training in safety systems, processes and practices and we saw records confirming that all employees had completed this training.
  • The service kept clear electronic records using digital systems specially designed for use in healthcare.
  • There were enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.
  • We found that staff and managers were open, transparent and fully committed to reporting and learning from incidents and near misses.
  • Infection risks were controlled, and the service worked hard to ensure the premises they used were suitable and supported the safe delivery of care. We saw that clinic rooms were well-equipped, air-conditioned when appropriate and had enough furnishings for their intended purpose.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 November 2019

We rated effective as Good because:

  • Although some aspects of this question were out of the scope of our inspection, we saw processes undertaken in line with guidance published by the National Institute of Care Excellence (NICE) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).
  • Staff followed checklists and documentation was completed thoroughly. We also saw that the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Classification was used to grade patients for their suitability for day case surgery.
  • In addition, we noted that antibiotic prophylaxis and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessments were completed in the notes we reviewed.
  • Policies and procedures were easily available to staff in electronic form. 

Caring

Good

Updated 14 November 2019

We rated it as Good because:

  • We saw staff taking the time to interact with patients and their relatives in a respectful and considerate way.
  • All the patients we interviewed told us that they were given excellent care, and that all staff were always kind and compassionate.
  • Patients told us they were actively involved in all decisions made regarding their care. We heard how their referrals had been acted upon very quickly and they felt listened to and valued.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 November 2019

We rated responsive as Good because:

  • The centre had actively implemented technology to help improve the way services were delivered.
  • The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences.
  • Staff made adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 November 2019

We rated well-led as Good because:

  • Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
  • The centre effectively contracted with a variety of agencies and providers to assist with training, compliance and service management. This assisted practitioners balance the needs of the business with clinical caseloads.  
  • Staff told us they felt well-supported, valued and that their opinions counted. 
Checks on specific services

Services for children & young people

Not sufficient evidence to rate

Updated 14 November 2019

Services for children and young people was a very small proportion of the centre’s activity and the regulated activity comprises just 11 patients, who had diagnostic ultrasound investigations as part of their general podiatric treatments.

We have included information about diagnostic imaging on children into this part of the report.

As the main activity was surgery, we have reported our findings in the surgery section where we found the arrangements to be the same.

 

Surgery

Good

Updated 14 November 2019

Elective podiatric surgery was the main regulated activity performed at the centre.

Cases consisted of sterile surgical forefoot procedures and soft tissue treatments, all of which were carried out under local anaesthesia.

Soft tissue treatments were out of the scope of this inspection and all surgical procedures were only offered to adults.