You are here

Archived: Clapham Junction Medical Practice Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 23 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Clapham Junction Medical Practice on 2 June 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good; however for people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) and people with long term conditions, the rating in the effective domain was requires improvement. Consequently, the effective domain overall was rated requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the June 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Clapham Junction Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 23 January 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 2 June 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Performance for diabetes related indicators had improved and was comparable to the local and national averages.

  • Performance for mental health related indicators was comparable to the local and national averages and exception reporting rates had improved to below local and national averages.

We also reviewed the areas we identified where the provider should make improvement:

  • The practice had undertaken infection control audits and had recorded actions taken to address identified issues including supplying a separate fridge for patient specimens that required refrigeration.

  • Health and Safety risk assessments showed action had been taken to ensure cleaning chemicals were safely stored and safety information readily available for them.

  • The practice provided us with evidence of fire risk assessments carried out for both sites and we saw evidence of fire alarm testing, and testing to ensure electrical appliances were safe to use.  

  • The accessibility and facilities available at each site had been reviewed and signs put up advertising the availability of areas for breast feeding and private conversations. The practice had also consulted with patients and the local clinical commissioning group about the improvements required to facilities and accessibility and had decided to close their Lavender Hill site.

  • The practice had reviewed and updated their business continuity plan to include staff contact details.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider should make improvements: 

  • Continue to review and develop ways of improving outcomes for patients.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 2 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Clapham Junction Medical Practice on 2 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Although risks to patients who used services were assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not always implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe. For example with regards to fire safety, health and safety, infection prevention and control and safety checks for electrical equipment.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Implement, monitor and review ways to improve care for patients with long term conditions and patients experiencing poor mental health (including patients with dementia).

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Implement, monitor and review actions identified to improve health and safety, fire safety and infection control in the practice.

  • Review the accessibility and facilities available at each site, considering any improvements that could be made, including advertising the areas for breast feeding and private conversations.

  • Review and update the practice business continuity plan to include staff contact details.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 8 August 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with who use the service told us they were happy with the service. One person told us the practice had �improved over the last year�. Members of the patient participation group told us that they were able to raise concerns with the practice. They also said the practice was receptive to making changes and improvements.

We observed that reception staff were available to assist people in a timely manner, and were professional and polite. We found that when we sat in the reception area, we could not hear what was said as people checked in for their appointments. We could hear what was being said when reception staff were on the phone, but were unaware of callers� identities.

We found that there were appropriate infection control measures in use at the practice and that medicines were adequately managed. We also found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because procedures were in place at the practice for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, and staff demonstrated that they were aware of these procedures.