Archived: Kirby Chemist Dental and Medical Centre

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 28 March 2019 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; however, there were some areas where the provider should make improvements in relation to the governance around safeguarding, sharing information with patients’ registered GPs, assessment of infection prevention and control, and the process for establishing and recording the relationship between children attending for appointments and the adult accompanying them.

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.

The service is located in a consultation room set within a long-established pharmacy shop, and provides appointments with a General Practitioner (GP). This is an independent health service, where patients self-fund. Patients pay only for the service(s) they receive; there is no membership or subscription charge. Appointments are provided solely by the GP who runs the service. The GP is supported by a practice manager, and appointments are booked via a contracted practice personal assistant who works remotely.

We received six patient comments cards, all of which were positive about the service they had received; patients made particular comments about the GP being thorough and caring during consultations.

Our key findings were:

• Overall, the service had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen; however, at the time of the inspection, in some areas the service’s approach had not been formalised or comprehensively risk-assessed.
• The service ensured that the regulated activities being offered were delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• The service was aware of the needs of its patient group and tailored its services to meet these needs.
• There was a commitment to continuous learning and improvement.

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

• Review arrangements in place in relation to the assessment of infection prevention and control.
• Review the service’s safeguarding arrangements, to include ensuring that specific information about identifying and reporting female genital mutilation is included in the safeguarding policy, and reviewing the need for formal safeguarding training for the contracted service personal assistant.
• Review and formalise the process for checking the identity of adults accompanying children to appointments.
• Review the service’s approach to sharing information with patients’ registered GP (with reference to good practice guidance), and formalise the service’s approach into a written policy.
• Review the process for recording action taken in response to medicines alerts and updates.
• Put in place a formal plan for the retention of patient records for the legally required duration, should the service cease to trade.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care