You are here

Archived: Chorley Medics Ltd

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 December 2012
Date of Publication: 3 January 2013
Inspection Report published 3 January 2013 PDF

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 12 December 2012 and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

The provider operated from a surgery which included a reception room and waiting area, two consultation rooms and a treatment room, which was used as an additional consultation room during busy periods. The provider also had two vehicles used for carrying out home visits. The provider operated an out-of-hours General Practitioner (GP) service covering 30 GP surgeries for people living in the Chorley and South Ribble areas. The Nominated Individual told us they served a population of approximately 169,000 people.

People made contact with the service by telephone. The majority of people using the service contacted their own GP surgery and were redirected to the out-of-hours service. People could also telephone the service directly to arrange an appointment.

When a person first contacted the service, they spoke with a call handler who recorded basic information such as the persons’ contact details, symptoms, medical conditions. The Call handlers then arranged an advice call or an appointment with a GP, either at the centre or as a home visit. The majority of people attended the centre for a consultation with the Clinician.

The provider used an electronic system to record the initial contact with people and the GP’s consultation notes. There were also some paper records, such as information for people who had complex medical needs. The Nominated individual told us the electronic system identified errors such as missing contact details, to help minimise data input errors. An Audit Clinician also carried out routine quality audits of medical records to check they were complete and accurate.

During the visit, we looked at three peoples’ medical records. These were generally complete and up to date and included the initial contact notes, medical history checks, consultation notes and details of medicines prescribed. The records we looked at showed that the treatments and consultations carried out were specific to the people who used the service and were based on their needs and preferences.

The provider had a risk register in place which included identified risks for key processes such as health and safety, infection control, vehicle failures, missed calls, operational risks and financial risks. The risk register was reviewed and updated by the senior management team and was overseen by the clinical governance committee.