Wharfedale Dermatology Clinic

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 7 December 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Wharfedale Dermatology Clinic is a service provided by Grange Park Surgery under a contract commissioned by the Airedale, Wharfedale and Craven Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The clinic provides a medical diagnostic and treatment service for the provision of community based dermatology for NHS patients.

The lead GP is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

As part of our inspection we asked for Care Quality Commission comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. Twenty five comment cards were completed, all of which were positive about the service they received. The clinic was described as excellent and staff were described as polite and courteous. Doctors were described to be thorough, helpful and willing to listen and give advice.

Our key findings were:

• The clinic provided community based access to specialist dermatology expertise and treatment in a timely manner.
• The provider had proactively responded to demand for community dermatology services by expanding the clinic sessions offered and supporting GPs to undertake additional training in dermatology.
• There was a strong focus on patient care and providing good quality care.
• There were systems in place to report and record safety incidents or near misses. Lessons were learned and changes made as a result of incidents.
• The clinic had access to a range of clinical and non-clinical governance policies and protocols.
• The clinic undertook relevant quality improvement activity to review and improve the effectiveness of care provided.
• Care and treatment was delivered in line with current evidence based guidance.
• The clinic kept a clear record of all referral, consultation and treatment plan information and had good systems to ensure this information was shared with the patients own GP.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Continue to work with practices from where their services are hosted to maintain appropriate infection, prevention and control and maintenance standards.
• Review and improve staff immunisation checks in line with the Department of Health recommendations.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice