You are here

River Brook Medical Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at River Brook Medical Centre on 12 December 2016. As a result of our inspection the practice was rated as good overall but required improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for River Brook Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based focused inspection carried out on 21 August 2017. This was to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach in regulations we identified in our previous inspection on 12 December 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had introduced appropriate recruitment procedures to ensure that persons employed met the required conditions. They had sought advice from a human resource service to assist them in ensuring all the necessary checks had been included. For example, references, photographic identification, and evidence of previous employment.

  • The practice had addressed coding issues in their clinical system and could demonstrate that health checks were being offered and carried out for patients with learning disabilities. This process also incorporated calling carers and patients aged over 75 for annual health checks. The practice submitted evidence to show that, for example, 71% of learning disability health checks had been completed up to August 2017. They searched their registers monthly to identify eligible patients and invited them to the practice for health checks.
  • The practice provided evidence to confirm that that oxygen masks for children had been purchased for use in the event of a child emergency.
  • The practice’s safeguarding policy had been reviewed and updated to include all types of potential abuse.

  • The practice had carried out a comprehensive infection control audit in November 2016 and introduced the use of documentation which allowed for review and follow up in the future. All staff had received infection control training.

  • The practice manager had introduced a formal programme of appraisals which involved identification of review dates for the following year at the end of each appraisal. The annual appraisal programme included a review of training needs.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

During our comprehensive inspection on 12 December 2016, we identified a breach of legal requirements. The practice needed to take action to ensure that appropriate recruitment procedures were in place which confirmed that persons employed met the required conditions. During our desk based focused inspection on 21 August 2017 we found that the practice had taken action to improve this area.

The practice manager had sought advice from a human resource service and reviewed their recruitment procedures to include a process to confirm that new employees met the necessary requirements. They had recruited a new member of staff since our previous inspection and submitted documentary evidence to demonstrate they had followed the procedure and recorded all information required.

The practice had carried out an infection control audit, using a comprehensive audit tool, which demonstrated that infection control training had been provided to all staff and that they had identified and addressed any infection control risks.

The practice’s safeguarding policy had been reviewed and updated in December 2016 to include all categories and definitions of abuse, for example modern slavery.

The practice is now rated as good for providing safe services.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Caring

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 12 December 2016 we rated the practice as good for the population group of people with long-term conditions. We did not review any evidence during our desk based focused inspection to alter this rating.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 12 December 2016 we rated the practice as good for the population group of families, children and young people. We did not review any evidence during our desk based focused inspection to alter this rating.

Older people

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 12 December 2016 we rated the practice as good for the population group of older people. We did not review any evidence during our desk based focused inspection to alter this rating.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 12 December 2016 we rated the practice as good for the population group of working age people (including those recently retired and students). We did not review any evidence during our desk based focused inspection to alter this rating.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 12 December 2016 we rated the practice as good for the population group of people experiencing poor mental health. We did not review any evidence during our desk based focused inspection to alter this rating.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 9 October 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 12 December 2016 we rated the practice as good for the population group of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. We did not review any evidence during our desk based focused inspection to alter this rating.