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. Crook Log Surgery 19 Crook Log, Bexleyheath, DA6 8DZ Tel: Date of Inspections: 19 February February 2014 Date of Publication: March 2014 We inspected the following standards in response to concerns that standards weren't being met. This is what we found: Respecting and involving people who use services Care and welfare of people who use services Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Requirements relating to workers Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision Met this standard Met this standard Action needed Action needed Action needed Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

2 Details about this location Registered Provider Registered Manager Overview of the service Type of services Regulated activities Crook Log Surgery Dr. Winnie Kwan Crook Log surgery is a doctors practice with two partners situated in the London borough of Bexley. Doctors consultation service Doctors treatment service Diagnostic and screening procedures Family planning Maternity and midwifery services Surgical procedures Treatment of disease, disorder or injury Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

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 What we have told the provider to do 5 More information about the provider 5 Our judgements for each standard inspected: Respecting and involving people who use services 6 Care and welfare of people who use services 8 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse 10 Requirements relating to workers 11 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision 12 Information primarily for the provider: Action we have told the provider to take 14 About CQC Inspections 16 How we define our judgements 17 Glossary of terms we use in this report 19 Contact us 21 Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

4 Summary of this inspection Why we carried out this inspection We carried out this inspection in response to concerns that one or more of the essential standards of quality and safety were not being met. 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 13 February 2014 and 19 February 2014, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We talked with local groups of people in the community or voluntary sector. What people told us and what we found People we spoke with gave mixed views about the care they received but most people were generally happy with the treatment they received from the surgery. One person told us "I cannot talk highly enough about this practice" and another described the care they received as "good". We found that most people felt listened to by the general practitioners (GPs) and other staff at the practice although some people told us that they felt there was a lack of consistency regarding the care they received as they were not always able to see the same doctor. Some people told us that there had been a lot of changes in medical and nursing staff which had affected care. A few people said they had difficulty getting through on the telephone or getting an appointment and there were sometimes long waits to be seen by the doctors. People also said they were not always kept informed if the GP was running late with appointments. A person said "the GP always listens to me and we have been coming here for a very long time". Most people felt they were treated with respect by the GPs but some people felt that some of the reception staff were abrupt and rude. We found that people were consulted with and involved in their care in most cases and that people's needs were assessed and care was planned in a way that met these needs. There were child protection procedures and policies in place; however the provider did not have policies and procedures in place for safeguarding of vulnerable adults. The practice had not in all cases taken steps to ensure only suitable people were employed at the service as employment checks were not carried out consistently. The practice had some systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was monitored but the provider was unable to demonstrate that the learning from complaints and significant events had been shared with other staff at the practice. You can see our judgements on the front page of this report. Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

5 What we have told the provider to do We have asked the provider to send us a report by 06 April 2014, setting out the action they will take to meet the standards. We will check to make sure that this action is taken. Where providers are not meeting essential standards, we have a range of enforcement powers we can use to protect the health, safety and welfare of people who use this service (and others, where appropriate). When we propose to take enforcement action, our decision is open to challenge by the provider through a variety of internal and external appeal processes. We will publish a further report on any action we take. 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 Crook Log Surgery March

6 Our judgements for each standard inspected Respecting and involving people who use services Met this standard People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. Reasons for our judgement People who use the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. People we spoke with told us that in most cases the general practitioner (GP) explained their treatment and gave them the opportunity to ask questions. Some people told us they were able to choose which hospital they were referred to for specialist treatment; however others told us that the GP did not always act promptly on their request for a specialist referral. One person told us that they had experienced long delays waiting for a referral for physiotherapy and hydrotherapy following surgery. When we reviewed a sample of medical records we saw that appropriate referrals had been made for people to seek specialist advice, and the preferences of the person using the service had been taken in to account regarding these referrals. Staff we spoke with told us that there had previously been a backlog of referrals due to staffing shortages but this was now resolved. People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. There was a suggestion box for people to give feedback to the patient participation group (PPG) and comments were fed back at the meetings. Minutes we reviewed confirmed that issues such as the open access surgery and the difficulties patients had in booking appointments in advance were discussed in the meetings. The chair of the PPG told us that they were finalising the questionnaire to repeat the survey in March 2014 in order to gain a broader view of the current problems facing the practice. We were told by the chair and this was confirmed by the lead GP that due to staffing shortages the PPG did not currently have a named individual from the practice to attend the PPG meetings. We were told that this was problematic when actions and changes needed to be implemented. People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. We saw that a patient information leaflet had been developed and provided information about the practice. The practice also produced a newsletter which was available on the practice website and contained information about how to obtain help and advice when the practice was closed. People who used the practice had a choice of Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

7 seeing either a male or female GP. We also noted that there was information in all the waiting areas informing people that they could request a chaperone if required. Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

8 Care and welfare of people who use services Met this standard People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Reasons for our judgement People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The medical records we reviewed contained evidence of assessments of people's needs undertaken at the consultation and further referral if required was arranged. Treatment plans documented in the notes included information on the next steps to treat someone should their condition worsen or fail to respond to the initial treatment. For example one plan indicated that as the person's symptoms had increased they would need a specialist referral to determine the cause of the problem. We saw that the referral was actioned promptly on the same day as the appointment with the GP. Medical notes showed that multi-disciplinary team discussions had been held in order to offer support to people with complex needs. For example end of life care meetings were held on a monthly basis and attended by GPs at the practice and community nurses including the local hospice. Minutes showed that people requiring end of life care had their needs discussed and care was planned to meet these needs. Documents showed that the practice GPs met on a weekly basis and discussed any specialist referrals that were required in order to ensure the practice was making only suitable referrals to other services. People's care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance. The GPs took into account guidelines developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) which they reviewed for particular topics and then discussed at the practice meeting. The practice protocols for managing people's health were then modified according to any changes in this guidance. For example, the practice protocol had been reviewed when the NICE guidance (CG127) for the use of diuretics had changed. The practice had also carried out a review of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and implemented a register of all patients with the condition that attended the surgery. The practice nurse and health care assistants reviewed all the patients regularly and checked their breathing and medication. The nursing staff also offered patients a 'rescue' pack; the pack contained an emergency supply of medication should their condition worsen due to a virus or chest infection. For example, in one case a person Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

9 was given a further blood test and offered the rescue pack and regular visits to see the nurse were discussed. There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The majority of staff including reception staff were trained in basic life support (BLS) which was carried out in March The practice manager told us that dates were currently being arranged for all staff to attend an update on BLS, although this had not been finalised at the time of our inspection. Staff we spoke with knew where equipment including a defibrillator, and medication was kept in case of an emergency. We found that emergency drugs and other equipment were checked regularly and were in date so they were ready for use and the practice nurse was responsible for carrying out these checks. Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

10 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Action needed People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights Our judgement The provider was not meeting this standard. People who use the service were not always protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening as staff had not received the appropriate training for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. We have judged that this has a minor impact on people who use the service, and have told the provider to take action. Please see the 'Action' section within this report. Reasons for our judgement People who use the service were not always protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The provider had a child protection policy in place and a lead clinician for safeguarding children. The principal GP had informed us at the inspection that they had taken on this role. The nominated lead in the policy was incorrect and named a GP that was no longer at the practice. The majority of staff working at the practice had been trained in September 2011 in safeguarding children and were due training updates in 2014 in line with the provider's policy. However, the provider did not have a policy or provide any evidence that staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. We spoke with staff at the practice who told us they would refer their concerns to a member of the clinical staff but not all staff were confident of the process of making an adult safeguarding referral to other agencies such as social services. There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff we spoke with knew they needed to take action to report concerns. Most staff were aware of where to find the whistleblowing policy. Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

11 Requirements relating to workers Action needed People should be cared for by staff who are properly qualified and able to do their job Our judgement The provider was not meeting this standard. People were not always cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. We have judged that this has a moderate impact on people who use the service, and have told the provider to take action. Please see the 'Action' section within this report. Reasons for our judgement The provider did not have effective recruitment and selection processes in place. The practice managers that we spoke with were able to describe the provider's recruitment processes and this included; advertising a job vacancy, shortlisting and interviewing applicants, pre-employment checks and making an employment offer. The seven staff records that we looked at showed that some of these recruitment processes had been implemented. For example, most of the seven staff records that we looked at included a curriculum vitae or an application form detailing a staff member's full employment and educational history, documentary evidence of relevant qualifications, interview records, photographic confirmation of staff identity, registrations with professional bodies for clinical staff, eligibility to work in the United Kingdom and contracts of employment. However, the lack of formal procedures and auditing of recruitment records meant that a consistent approach was not followed by management to ensure that all relevant checks and documentary evidence had been obtained before staff were employed. Appropriate checks were not always undertaken before staff began work. For example, four out of seven staff records that we looked at did not contain information to verify that two written references had been obtained in line with the provider's requirements. This was discussed with the practice managers who acknowledged that some of the non-clinical staff had commenced work with one reference having been obtained due to an urgent need to employ staff; and plans were in place to obtain the second references. However, as this had not been completed at the time of our inspection we could not assess its impact. We saw that some staff had been allowed to work before a satisfactory occupational health check / and or health declaration had been received and reviewed by the provider to ensure that all staff member were physically and mentally fit for work prior to commencing employment. We also found that two out of four records for the clinical staff did not contain criminal record checks undertaken by the provider to ensure that staff were suitable to work with children and vulnerable adults. Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

12 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision Action needed 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 not meeting this standard. The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. We have judged that this has a minor impact on people who use the service, and have told the provider to take action. Please see the 'Action' section within this report. Reasons for our judgement People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. The practice had developed a Patient Participation Group (PPG) and consulted with them about issues such as staffing levels and delays in patients' accessing appointments. The practice monitored and displayed the number of appointments that were booked but not attended to encourage patients' to cancel unwanted appointments and increase availability for other patients. The practice had completed a satisfaction survey in 2013 which confirmed that most patients were happy with their care. The PPG was in the process of developing a new questionnaire for people using the service, which was due to be completed by the end of March The PPG chair told us that due to staffing shortages the committee did not have a lead from the practice on a regular basis and this was delaying any actions needing to be taken. The chair of the PPG told us that the group produced a quarterly newsletter which was available on the website and contained information on specialised clinics such as diabetes and flu vaccinations. On the first day of the inspection we noted that the complaints procedure was not displayed at the reception desk.. A person we spoke with told us when that they intended to lodge a complaint regarding the delay they had experienced in being referred for hydrotherapy but they were unsure who to contact. This was discussed with a member of staff and the correct information was provided for the patient. We did note that on the second inspection day information regarding accessing the complaints procedure had been posted in the reception area. Another person told us that they saw no point in complaining about waiting times as nothing seemed to change. We were told "there is always a long wait to check in at reception, see the doctor and to get another appointment, there's just not enough staff" The practice manager showed us the complaints log and we saw that a record of the complaints received and responded to was maintained. The seven complaints that we looked at detailed the date the complaint was received, the nature of the complaint and how it was resolved. We saw evidence that the complaints had been fully investigated and resolved where possible to people's satisfaction. However, the Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

13 provider could not demonstrate that issues in complaints and themes found in complaints had been shared with staff as all staff meetings were not documented. Therefore the quality of the service was not adequately monitored. During the inspection some people told us they were dissatisfied with the reception staff and felt that some staff were rude and abrupt. We observed this on two occasions during our visit and discussed this with senior staff at the practice. We also observed on the first day of our visit that patients were experiencing long delays in checking in at reception. Staff told us that the practice had introduced a self- booking in system via a computer to try to alleviate the delays. However, people we spoke to were unaware of the new system and how they could operate it. One person told us that they had used the system but it did not tell them which floor the doctor was on; as there were three floors the person had to queue at the desk to find out which floor the doctor they were seeing was on. The principal GP told us that a review of the practice staffing levels and systems was being undertaken. This included the roles of administrative and reception staff and the employment of another salaried GP to alleviate the delays in people accessing appointments. However, as this process had not been completed at the time of our inspection we not able to report on the findings. There were some effective systems in place to ensure the safety and welfare of people using the service such as clinical audits to monitor the treatments provided as well as the safety of the premises. The provider recorded and investigated significant events relating to treatment and care of patients. We were provided with three significant events which showed that each had been reviewed which identified the actions needing to be taken to avoid the situation in the future. However, as staff meetings were not documented the provider could not demonstrate that all staff were aware of the issues involved and how to avoid the incident being repeated. Fire safety risk assessment had been last updated in August 2012 and fire alarm maintenance had been undertaken in February Fire safety training was due to be undertaken on 20 March 2014 and PAT testing for all the electrical appliances was also due to be undertaken on the 03 March2014 and confirmation of this was seen at the time of our inspection. The practice was in the process of completing a business continuity plan and this was in draft form and had not been formalised and therefore could not be assessed at the time of our inspection. Staff monitored the medication fridge temperatures on a daily basis to ensure medications such as vaccinations were stored at the correct temperature. The practice manager monitored the cleaning schedule and we reviewed the records back to September 2013 and found that appropriate checks were in place. We were told by the practice manager that a Legionella risk assessment had been carried out, but staff could not find evidence to confirm this. Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

14 This section is primarily information for the provider Action we have told the provider to take Compliance actions The table below shows the essential standards of quality and safety that were not being met. The provider must send CQC a report that says what action they are going to take to meet these essential standards. Regulated activities Diagnostic and screening procedures Family planning Maternity and midwifery services Surgical procedures Treatment of disease, disorder or injury Regulation Regulation 11 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse How the regulation was not being met: People who use the service were not always protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Regulation 11.-(1)(a) Regulated activities Diagnostic and screening procedures Family planning Maternity and midwifery services Surgical procedures Treatment of Regulation Regulation 21 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 Requirements relating to workers How the regulation was not being met: The provider had not ensured that information specified in Schedule 3 including an assessment of staff character and fitness for work was available in recruitment records - Regulation 21(a)(i)(iii)(b). Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

15 This section is primarily information for the provider disease, disorder or injury Regulated activities Diagnostic and screening procedures Family planning Maternity and midwifery services Surgical procedures Treatment of disease, disorder or injury Regulation Regulation 10 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision How the regulation was not being met: The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. Regulation 10.-(1)(a)(b)(2)(i)(ii) This report is requested under regulation 10(3) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations The provider's report should be sent to us by 06 April CQC should be informed when compliance actions are complete. We will check to make sure that action has been taken to meet the standards and will report on our judgements. Inspection Report Crook Log Surgery March

16 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 Crook Log Surgery March

17 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. Met this standard 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 Crook Log Surgery March

18 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 Crook Log Surgery March

19 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 Crook Log Surgery March

20 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 Crook Log Surgery March

21 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 Crook Log Surgery March