You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We visited Avon Valley Practice on 23 August 2016 to carry out a comprehensive inspection. We found the practice was not compliant with the regulation relating to safe care and treatment. Overall the practice was rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice required improvement for the provision of safe services because:

  • There was no atropine available at either of the practice’s sites on the day of the inspection. (Atropine is a drug that can slow the heart rate and is recommended to be available for emergencies in practices that fit coils or perform minor surgery.)

  • The practice did not have an up to date record of the Hepatitis B status for all staff who may have direct contact with patients’ blood or blood-stained bodily fluids. For example, from sharps.

Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan that set out the changes they would make and subsequently supplied information to confirm they had completed the actions.

This focused desk based inspection was undertaken on 2 February 2017 to ensure that the practice was meeting the regulation previously breached. For this reason we have only rated the location for the key questions to which this related. This report should be read in conjunction with the full report of our inspection on 23 August 2016, which can be found on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The practice is now rated as Good for

the provision of safe services

and the overall rating remains as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Atropine was now available at both the practice’s sites.

  • The practice has an up to date record of the Hepatitis B status for all staff who may have direct contact with patients’ blood or blood-stained bodily fluids.

 

During our desktop review, we found that since our visit in August 2016 the practice had reviewed other areas of their practice to improve their services.  For example, we saw evidence the practice had:

  • Reviewed and updated their repeat prescription protocols.

  • Reviewed and updated their employment policy to ensure that staff who required a DBS check due to their role, have it repeated at three yearly intervals.

  • Reviewed and updated their telephone system. 

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

When we visited Avon

Valley Practice on 23 August 2016 to carry out a comprehensive inspection, we

found the practice required improvement for the provision of safe services

because:

  • There was no atropine available at either of the practice’s sites on the

    day of the inspection. (Atropine is a drug that can slow the heart rate and is

    recommended to be available for emergencies in practices that fit coils or

    perform minor surgery.)

  • The practice did not have an up to date record of the Hepatitis B status

    for all staff who may have direct contact with patients’ blood or blood-stained

    bodily fluids. For example, from sharps.

We undertook a follow up

desk based inspection of the service on 12 April 2017 to

review the actions taken by the practice to improve the quality of care and to

confirm that the practice was now meeting legal requirements.  We saw evidence which enabled us to find that;

The practice is now

rated as good for providing safe services.           

Effective

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

Caring

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

We did not inspect

the population groups as part of this inspection. However, the provider had

resolved the concerns for safe services identified at our inspection on 23

August 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this

population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect

this.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

We did not inspect

the population groups as part of this inspection. However, the provider had

resolved the concerns for safe services identified at our inspection on 23

August 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this

population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect

this.

Older people

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

We did not inspect

the population groups as part of this inspection. However, the provider had

resolved the concerns for safe services identified at our inspection on 23

August 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this

population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect

this.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

We did not inspect

the population groups as part of this inspection. However, the provider had

resolved the concerns for safe services identified at our inspection on 23

August 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this

population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect

this.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

We did not inspect

the population groups as part of this inspection. However, the provider had

resolved the concerns for safe services identified at our inspection on 23

August 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this

population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect

this.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

We did not inspect

the population groups as part of this inspection. However, the provider had

resolved the concerns for safe services identified at our inspection on 23

August 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this

population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect

this.