You are here

Teehey Lane Medical Centre - Dr. M Salahuddin Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 January 2014
Date of Publication: 4 February 2014
Inspection Report published 04 February 2014 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We carried out a visit on 8 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We talked with commissioners of services and were accompanied by a specialist advisor.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at how the service respected and involved patients. We spoke with seven patients who told us they were happy with the advice and treatment provided. They said that they had enough time to discuss their health concerns and that any treatment or tests were clearly explained. They said they were seen in a private treatment room and that all staff were respectful towards them.

We found that the views of patients were listened to. For example, the last survey by the service of patient satisfaction had indicated that patients considered the waiting area needed modernisation. There was also some concern that patients could hear other patients talking to reception staff. Since the survey a refurbishment has taken place which has made the waiting area bigger, more modern with the reception situated further away from the patient’s seating area. The manager informed us that the next survey would address whether patients considered this to better promote privacy. They also informed us that they would put a sign up in the reception area offering patients the opportunity to talk to reception staff in a private room.

The last survey had identified that some patients could wait up to fifteen minutes after their appointment to be seen and that it was sometimes difficult to get through on the phone. We observed that telephones were answered promptly. We also saw that there was a good flow through of patients with patients not waiting for long periods to see a GP.

An information leaflet about the service was provided to all patients. This included information about opening times, extended hours services, how to make appointments and clinics available. This leaflet needed to be updated and the manager said that a more comprehensive patient information booklet was in the process of being produced. We saw that useful information about health screening services, medical conditions and support groups was displayed. The service also had a website for patients to refer to.

The patient information leaflet and website for the service indicated that appointments could be made by telephone or on - line. Home visits were made available to patients who were housebound or too ill to visit the service. An extended hour’s service was available two evenings a week. We saw that each GP set aside appointments to ensure patients could be seen if they required urgent attention. For emergencies outside normal working hours patients were referred to the NHS Direct, the Walk-in Centre and the Out of Hours service.

We observed that patients were seen in private. We were informed that a chaperone would be provided during the consultation if a patient requested this or if this was needed to promote their dignity and well-being. Information about chaperones was contained in the patient information leaflet. However, the provider may find it useful to note that this was not displayed in the waiting area for patients to refer to. Any staff who acted as chaperones had received training around this.

The seven patients we spoke with found the service accessible. Facilities for people with a physical disability were available. Interpreting services were available and the manager reported these were accessed as required.

The practice manager confirmed that the staff had been made aware of the importance of confidentiality and any recorded information relating to patients was held securely.

A newsletter was produced three times a year and provided information about services being offered such as vaccination programmes and clinics and any changes to the operation of the service or to staffing.