You are here

Davyhulme Medical Centre Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 September 2013
Date of Publication: 2 October 2013
Inspection Report published 02 October 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 18 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

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

The practice consisted of eight GPs, two part time nurses, two part time health care assistants and 32 administrative staff. It was a training practice and two of the GPs were trainers, their duties being adjusted according to the needs of students, for example, having slightly longer for consultations to allow them time to explain investigations and treatments clearly to the students.

There was a range of services provided, including immunisations, minor surgery, family planning, health assessments for patients over 75 years and, where GPs felt appropriate, telephone consultations. There was a blood pressure self-check service in the smaller waiting area and we saw a patient using this facility during our visit. A limited number of urgent appointments were available to patients each day.

We looked at a sample of patient electronic records and saw that they included medical histories, treatments and consultation notes. Allergies and important medical information were flagged up in red and there were safeguards around certain drugs which needed monitoring, i.e. the system would not allow a prescription to be issued until certain steps had been taken in order to minimise the risk of mistakes. Results of tests were held on the records and we were told that administrative staff, if asked to ring a patient to give results, were required to give a verbatim message to avoid any misunderstanding.

We saw that appropriate equipment, such as fire extinguishers, was in place and we were shown evidence of weekly alarm tests and regular fire drills. We saw that some staff had recently undertaken fire marshall training as a result of other staff reducing their hours and not always being on the premises. We saw that all staff undertook Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) training annually and were up to date with this training.

We were told that the practice had a half day training event every six months when they would meet together and discuss any important changes and updates and undertake some learning development. Communication took place on a day to day basis both verbally and via day book messages which were completed and checked every day. Staff meetings were held on a regular basis and we saw evidence of this in the form of meeting minutes.

We spoke with six patients who were generally very positive about their care and treatment at the practice. One patient told us, “I was referred quickly to the hospital and seen there within two to three weeks”. Another patient said, “I came recently and two doctors stayed late to talk to me and explain everything. They look after you in every way.” A third patient commented, “The nurses are excellent, the nurse picked up on my symptoms right away. If you only come for a blood test she’ll ask how you are and pick up on anything else.”

One patient was unhappy with the waiting time for their appointment, commenting that although the staff were no problem the waiting time could be quite long. Another commented, “It is not always easy to get an appointment with the doctor you want to see”.