We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards.

Transcription

1 Inspection Report We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards. Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram 339 Moor Green Lane, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8QS Tel: Date of Inspection: 05 June 2013 Date of Publication: July 2013 We inspected the following standards as part of a routine inspection. This is what we found: Care and welfare of people who use services Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Cleanliness and infection control Safety and suitability of premises Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

2 Details about this location Registered Provider Overview of the service Type of services Regulated activities Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram Dr Ramachandram is based at Moor Green Lane Medical Centre and provides primary care for people living in the surrounding area. Doctors consultation service Doctors treatment service Diagnostic and screening procedures Family planning Maternity and midwifery services Treatment of disease, disorder or injury Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

3 Contents When you read this report, you may find it useful to read the sections towards the back called 'About CQC inspections' and 'How we define our judgements'. Summary of this inspection: Page Why we carried out this inspection 4 How we carried out this inspection 4 What people told us and what we found 4 More information about the provider 5 Our judgements for each standard inspected: Care and welfare of people who use services 6 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse 8 Cleanliness and infection control 9 Safety and suitability of premises 10 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision 11 About CQC Inspections 13 How we define our judgements 14 Glossary of terms we use in this report 16 Contact us 18 Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

4 Summary of this inspection Why we carried out this inspection This was a routine inspection to check that essential standards of quality and safety referred to on the front page were being met. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection. This was an announced inspection. How we carried out this inspection We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 June 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and were accompanied by a specialist advisor. What people told us and what we found We spoke with eight patients, the registered provider (the lead GP), the practice manager, a practice nurse, the health care assistant and a receptionist. Patients' needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual wishes. Patients told us they were treated with care and respect and provided positive feedback. One patient told us: "I just think generally the patients are at the heart of this practice and care is paramount". We spoke with another patient about the care their relative received. They said: "I just know whoever she sees she'll have good treatment". The patients we spoke with told us that obtaining repeat prescriptions had not been a problem. We found that referral of patients to hospitals had been made promptly and efficiently. Staff had received training in the safeguarding vulnerable of adults and children. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to so that patients were protected from harm. We found that the premises were appropriate and all areas of the practice were seen to be hygienic and well organised. There was a cleaning schedule in place and regular audits had been carried out to check the standards of hygiene. The practice had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the rest of the service that patients received. All patients spoken with were complimentary about the services they received. You can see our judgements on the front page of this report. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

5 More information about the provider Please see our website for more information, including our most recent judgements against the essential standards. You can contact us using the telephone number on the back of the report if you have additional questions. There is a glossary at the back of this report which has definitions for words and phrases we use in the report. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

6 Our judgements for each standard inspected Care and welfare of people who use services People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Patients experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Reasons for our judgement We spoke with eight patients who had used the service. Patient's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual wishes. They described how their care was managed and provided. One patient told us their care had been reviewed: "At least every six months or earlier if I have any problems". Another patient told us: "GP's are very easy to talk to". A third patient said: "Doctors and nurses listen to what we say". A practice nurse that we spoke with told us that housebound patients had been routinely visited at home every six months by a small team including a GP and a practice nurse or community nurse. The relatives were informed a week before the planned visit so that they could be present if they wished to. The practice nurse said that patients with long term illnesses such as asthma or diabetes were reviewed at least every six months. The practice nurse told us: "Because we are a small practice we know a lot of our patients or we know relatives. We try to keep care personal and if I see someone I try to follow them up". This meant that patients received appropriate assessments and treatments. The registered provider told us they used the national institute for clinical excellence (NICE) templates for processes involving diagnosis and treatments of illnesses that patients may present with. This meant that patients received up to date tests and treatments for their disorders. Patients told us they were able to get an appointment quickly and were seen on time by the doctor or nurse. They said they knew they could ask to for a chaperone when they were seen by the doctor or nurse. This arrangement was confirmed by the health care assistant we spoke with who told us they act as a chaperone when required. We observed reception staff interacting positively with patients. Many of the staff had worked at the surgery for a long time and clearly knew the patients. They welcomed patients and spoke politely to them and asked how they were. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

7 The registered provider told us that medication reviews were undertaken regularly depending on the type of medication that patients were prescribed. They said that patients were asked to take any unused medications to the practice so that the doctor could check that they had been taking them and if not whether they were still needed by the patient. We asked the registered provider about caring for patients who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The registered provider had a good understanding of the principles of mental capacity, and recognised that patients may have the ability to make some decisions but not others. They said decisions may also involve relatives or social services if required. This meant that appropriate systems were in place for assessing patient's ability to make decisions about their health care needs. We saw that there was an out of hour's notice clearly visible in the reception area. We asked the practice manager about the out of hours service. They told us that when the practice was closed patients were able to phone and would be given further numbers to call. There were leaflets and a practice booklet at the reception desk for patients to take home. They described the options available to patients and guidance on where to go. For example the types of illnesses that should be treated by attendance at a walk in clinic or the hospital accident and emergency department. The practice manager explained that details of any patients seen by the out of hours service would be ed to the registered provider by the following morning for any necessary follow-up to be actioned by practice staff. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

8 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Patients who were cared for by the practice were protected from the risk of abuse because they had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Reasons for our judgement The patients we spoke with told us they felt safe when they received care and support from staff. The registered provider may wish to note that no written information was available at the practice that informed patients of their rights in respect of safety and poor practices. We spoke with the registered provider who was the lead for safeguarding. They explained the practice's procedures for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children. They told us they and another senior member of staff had attended level three (higher level) safeguarding training. We spoke with the practice nurse and the health care assistant. They were able to describe the different types of abuse and how they would respond if abuse was suspected. They said they would report any concerns to the registered provider and the practice manager. They confirmed that they had received training in protection of vulnerable adults and children. All staff were expected to undertake in-house refresher training annually to keep them up to date. The training records we viewed confirmed that all staff who provided care for patients had received safeguarding training. The practice manager showed us the policy for the protection of children and vulnerable adults. It included the contact details of various organisations including the authority who were responsible for investigating allegations. We also saw a whistle blowing policy that encouraged staff to report poor practices they may witness. Staff spoken with told us they were familiar with the policy and the meaning of it. This meant that staff understood these policies and how to respond to concerns. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

9 Cleanliness and infection control People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Patients were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Reasons for our judgement The patients we spoke with told us they were happy with the level of cleanliness. Their comments included: "It's quite spotless". "It's immaculate... they must have a good cleaner". "It's very clean". A cleaner was employed to work at the practice. The practice manager told us: "It is every body's responsibility to ensure high standards of hygiene are maintained". We found that all areas of the practice were hygienic ad well organised. All consulting rooms and treatment rooms had hand washing facilities, hand cleaning gel and gloves. Each room also had sharps posters that advised staff about the safe disposal of needles and syringes to prevent the likelihood of infection. The practice manager showed us the written cleaning guidance for all of the different areas of the practice. The cleaning rota was signed by staff to confirm that the cleaning had been carried out. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We saw that there was an appropriate infection control policy and when we spoke to staff they were able to tell us about it. We saw that internal infection control audits and a risk assessment had been carried out and that these demonstrated that the systems in place to protect patients from infection were being followed. The registered provider had a clinical waste contract in place. A clinical waste audit had been carried out in July It confirmed that staff practices protected patients from the risks of infections. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

10 Safety and suitability of premises People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Patients who used the service and staff were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. Reasons for our judgement We found that the premises were appropriate for their intended purpose. The doorway to the practice was suitable for access by wheelchair users. We spoke with the registered provider and asked what they would do if a patient with restricted mobility was unable to enter the premises. They told us they would visit the patient in their own home. The premises had a toilet with enough internal space and a doorway that was wide enough to accommodate wheelchair users. There were also grab rails for the assistance of people who had restricted mobility. The design and layout of the premises were noted to be appropriate for patients. It was seen to be light and well ventilated. Risk assessments had been carried out to check on the safety for patients accessing the practice. A checklist of premises was in place so that staff could request maintenance work if they identified any problems. The waiting room had ample comfortable seating for people whilst waiting to see the doctor or nurse. The reception desk included a low level area for ease of access by wheelchair users. We saw that the door to the reception area and other areas of the practice included a coded lock. This meant that staff and equipment were protected against unauthorised people from gaining access. The premises appeared well maintained and there were no obstacles on either side of the emergency exit doors. The fire fighting equipment had checked annually by a fire safety company. This meant that the registered provider had systems in place to protect patients and staff from the risks associated with fire. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

11 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. The practice had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received. Reasons for our judgement All of the eight patients we spoke with provided positive comments about the services they received. One patient told us: "We have patient focussed care that meets our needs". Another patient said: The doctor always have time for you, I am never rushed". We spoke with three members of the patient participation group (PPG). They told us they held meetings approximately every eight weeks and a doctor attends the meetings. A practice receptionist provided administration support. The PPG contributed to the practice and produced a quarterly newsletter that was freely available for patients to take a copy in the reception area. They were also published on the NHS Choices website. The PPG carried out annual patient surveys and developed a detailed report. The report published March 2013 included a great deal of information about the practice, how it operated and patient surveys. The 40 page report that was available from the practice and on the NHS Choices website indicated that patients had received a good service. The report included topics such as the out of hours services, the appointment system and waiting times and patients overall satisfaction. Where areas for improvement had been identified these included when action would be taken and by whom. The registered provider had an emergency plan on place and a manual of all relevant contact numbers. For example the plumber. Weekly practice and clinical meetings were held. We were shown the minutes of the meetings that had been held. The practice manager told us about the meetings that were held every two weeks with external professionals such as a midwife, health visitor and community nurse or matron. Topics included patient care and systems within the surgery. This meant that ongoing improvements were made for the benefit of patients who received the services. The registered provider told us that they regularly carried out audits of how they treat illnesses. For example iron deficiency anaemia November 2012 and vitamin D March Audits of prescribed medications were also carried out on a rolling basis. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

12 We saw that leaflets were available at the reception area. They informed patients about their right to make a complaint and how to do this. We found that the practice manager audited the number of complaints received and whether any actions were needed to improve the services. There had been one complaint received within the last 12 months and we noted that it had been dealt with efficiently. All of the patients we spoke with said they had never made a complaint. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

13 About CQC inspections We are the regulator of health and social care in England. All providers of regulated health and social care services have a legal responsibility to make sure they are meeting essential standards of quality and safety. These are the standards everyone should be able to expect when they receive care. The essential standards are described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations We regulate against these standards, which we sometimes describe as "government standards". We carry out unannounced inspections of all care homes, acute hospitals and domiciliary care services in England at least once a year to judge whether or not the essential standards are being met. We carry out inspections of other services less often. All of our inspections are unannounced unless there is a good reason to let the provider know we are coming. There are 16 essential standards that relate most directly to the quality and safety of care and these are grouped into five key areas. When we inspect we could check all or part of any of the 16 standards at any time depending on the individual circumstances of the service. Because of this we often check different standards at different times. When we inspect, we always visit and we do things like observe how people are cared for, and we talk to people who use the service, to their carers and to staff. We also review information we have gathered about the provider, check the service's records and check whether the right systems and processes are in place. We focus on whether or not the provider is meeting the standards and we are guided by whether people are experiencing the outcomes they should be able to expect when the standards are being met. By outcomes we mean the impact care has on the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service, and the experience they have whilst receiving it. Our inspectors judge if any action is required by the provider of the service to improve the standard of care being provided. Where providers are non-compliant with the regulations, we take enforcement action against them. If we require a service to take action, or if we take enforcement action, we re-inspect it before its next routine inspection was due. This could mean we re-inspect a service several times in one year. We also might decide to reinspect a service if new concerns emerge about it before the next routine inspection. In between inspections we continually monitor information we have about providers. The information comes from the public, the provider, other organisations, and from care workers. You can tell us about your experience of this provider on our website. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

14 How we define our judgements The following pages show our findings and regulatory judgement for each essential standard or part of the standard that we inspected. Our judgements are based on the ongoing review and analysis of the information gathered by CQC about this provider and the evidence collected during this inspection. We reach one of the following judgements for each essential standard inspected. This means that the standard was being met in that the provider was compliant with the regulation. If we find that standards were met, we take no regulatory action but we may make comments that may be useful to the provider and to the public about minor improvements that could be made. Action needed This means that the standard was not being met in that the provider was non-compliant with the regulation. We may have set a compliance action requiring the provider to produce a report setting out how and by when changes will be made to make sure they comply with the standard. We monitor the implementation of action plans in these reports and, if necessary, take further action. We may have identified a breach of a regulation which is more serious, and we will make sure action is taken. We will report on this when it is complete. Enforcement action taken If the breach of the regulation was more serious, or there have been several or continual breaches, we have a range of actions we take using the criminal and/or civil procedures in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and relevant regulations. These enforcement powers include issuing a warning notice; restricting or suspending the services a provider can offer, or the number of people it can care for; issuing fines and formal cautions; in extreme cases, cancelling a provider or managers registration or prosecuting a manager or provider. These enforcement powers are set out in law and mean that we can take swift, targeted action where services are failing people. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

15 How we define our judgements (continued) Where we find non-compliance with a regulation (or part of a regulation), we state which part of the regulation has been breached. Only where there is non compliance with one or more of Regulations 9-24 of the Regulated Activity Regulations, will our report include a judgement about the level of impact on people who use the service (and others, if appropriate to the regulation). This could be a minor, moderate or major impact. Minor impact people who use the service experienced poor care that had an impact on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The impact was not significant and the matter could be managed or resolved quickly. Moderate impact people who use the service experienced poor care that had a significant effect on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The matter may need to be resolved quickly. Major impact people who use the service experienced poor care that had a serious current or long term impact on their health, safety and welfare, or there was a risk of this happening. The matter needs to be resolved quickly We decide the most appropriate action to take to ensure that the necessary changes are made. We always follow up to check whether action has been taken to meet the standards. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

16 Glossary of terms we use in this report Essential standard The essential standards of quality and safety are described in our Guidance about compliance: Essential standards of quality and safety. They consist of a significant number of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations These regulations describe the essential standards of quality and safety that people who use health and adult social care services have a right to expect. A full list of the standards can be found within the Guidance about compliance. The 16 essential standards are: Respecting and involving people who use services - Outcome 1 (Regulation 17) Consent to care and treatment - Outcome 2 (Regulation 18) Care and welfare of people who use services - Outcome 4 (Regulation 9) Meeting Nutritional Needs - Outcome 5 (Regulation 14) Cooperating with other providers - Outcome 6 (Regulation 24) Safeguarding people who use services from abuse - Outcome 7 (Regulation 11) Cleanliness and infection control - Outcome 8 (Regulation 12) Management of medicines - Outcome 9 (Regulation 13) Safety and suitability of premises - Outcome 10 (Regulation 15) Safety, availability and suitability of equipment - Outcome 11 (Regulation 16) Requirements relating to workers - Outcome 12 (Regulation 21) Staffing - Outcome 13 (Regulation 22) Supporting Staff - Outcome 14 (Regulation 23) Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision - Outcome 16 (Regulation 10) Complaints - Outcome 17 (Regulation 19) Records - Outcome 21 (Regulation 20) Regulated activity These are prescribed activities related to care and treatment that require registration with CQC. These are set out in legislation, and reflect the services provided. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

17 Glossary of terms we use in this report (continued) (Registered) Provider There are several legal terms relating to the providers of services. These include registered person, service provider and registered manager. The term 'provider' means anyone with a legal responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the law are carried out. On our website we often refer to providers as a 'service'. Regulations We regulate against the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations Responsive inspection This is carried out at any time in relation to identified concerns. Routine inspection This is planned and could occur at any time. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection. Themed inspection This is targeted to look at specific standards, sectors or types of care. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July

18 Contact us Phone: Write to us at: Care Quality Commission Citygate Gallowgate Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4PA Website: Copyright Copyright (2011) Care Quality Commission (CQC). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, free of charge, in any format or medium provided that it is not used for commercial gain. This consent is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and on proviso that it is not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The material should be acknowledged as CQC copyright, with the title and date of publication of the document specified. Inspection Report Dr Raja Segar Ramachandram July