Archived: Bromley Urgent Care Centre

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bromley Urgent Care Centre on 16 February 2017. The overall rating for the practice was good. However, a breach of regulation 12(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 was identified, and we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive inspection report published June 2017 can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bromley Urgent Care Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based follow up inspection carried out on 13 December 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 16 February 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The service had developed effective systems and processes to ensure safe care and treatment including medicines management in relation to vaccine storage.

• The service had updated their policies and documents in relation to cold chain (a system of storing medicines/vaccines at recommended temperatures from the point of manufacture to the point of use) and medicine management.

• The service conducted monthly clinical governance meetings where they discussed compliance in the management of the monitoring of the vaccine refrigerator.

• The service recorded vaccine refrigerator temperatures daily.

• The service conducted a monthly vaccine refrigerator audit.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bromley Urgent Care Centre on 16 February 2017. Overall the service 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 recording, reporting and learning from significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Patients’ care needs were assessed and delivered in a timely way according to need. The service met most targets specific to the urgent care centre.
• 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.
• There was a system in place that enabled staff access to patient records, with information following contact with patients as was appropriate.
• 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.
• The service worked proactively with other organisations and providers to develop services that supported alternatives to hospital admission where appropriate and improved the patient experience.
• The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service 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 area where the provider must make improvement is:

• Develop effective systems and processes to ensure safe care and treatment including medicines management in relation to vaccine storage.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice