You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 August 2013
Date of Publication: 6 September 2013
Inspection Report published 06 September 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 20 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, were accompanied by a specialist advisor and used information from local Healthwatch to inform our inspection.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The medical records we checked showed evidence of suitable assessment of people's needs. The staff explained to us the procedures for reminding people of their check-ups and vaccinations, such as the seasonal flu jabs.

The practice had weekly clinical and business meetings where issues relevant to patient care, and complaints and significant events were discussed. The practice maintained records for people receiving palliative care. There were periodic multi-disciplinary meetings attended by the palliative care nurses to discuss the care of people on palliative care pathways. The practice took into account National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Staff were aware of procedures to follow to ensure that patients on the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) register were contacted and recalled at suitable intervals. In most cases of QOF outcomes the practice was ahead of the trajectory to meet targets. The practice may wish to note that their recall systems could be improved for patients with depression, patients over 85 years of age with chronic kidney disease and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The GPs carried out clinical audits to ensure the treatment they offered people were in line with relevant guidance. For example, an audit had been undertaken on the use of high-dose steroid inhalers. Interventions in the form of lowering the strength of inhalers had been made and the use of high dose steroid inhalers had been re-audited.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Staff including reception staff, were provided with training in life support techniques. The provider submitted training records of staff currently employed at the practice. Of 18 clinical staff 15 had received training within the past 20 months. The practice manager told us that training planned for April 2013 had been deferred to September 2013 as the company providing training could not give dates that fitted with the practice. The practice had posters displayed in accessible areas outlining what action to take in the event of an emergency situation. We found that all emergency drugs and other equipment were in date. Staff we spoke with were aware of their roles and responsibilities in the event of an emergency situation.