We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Nederlof and Partners on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Dr Nederlof and Partners, you can give feedback on this service.
We had previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Swindlehurst and Partners on 11 May 2016. As a result of our inspection the practice was rated as requires improvement overall and inadequate for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report for the May 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Swindlehurst and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
During the last inspection we identified a breach of:
Regulation 12; Safe care and treatment:
The registered person did not do all that was necessary to manage and mitigate risks to the health and safety of service users.
The provider did not have a robust process to ensure appropriate action is taken following receipt of patient safety alerts.
Processes and systems had not been implemented in relation to medicines management to ensure safe and appropriate storage of vaccines and prescription forms for use in printers.
As a result we identified areas the provider must improve:
Implement a process to ensure appropriate action is taken following receipt of patient safety alerts.
Processes and systems to be implemented and monitored in relation to medicines management to ensure safe and secure storage of vaccines and prescription stationery including the use and storage of prescription pads and blank prescription paper.
We also identified further areas the provider should improve:
Ensure lessons are learnt from incidents and near misses.
Develop ways to monitor and improve patient satisfaction.
Ensure training and support for staff to enable them to carry out their roles for example, in infection control.
Following the inspection the practice sent us an action plan detailing the actions they were going to take to ensure improvement.
We carried out a further comprehensive inspection on 31 January 2017 to check that the provider had made improvements in line with our recommendations and to ensure regulations were now being met. Overall the practice is now rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
Staffing levels were monitored and reviewed when a member of staff left or when service level dictated. Safe arrangements were in place for staff recruitment that protected patients from risks of harm.
The practice was visibly clean and measures were taken to prevent unnecessary infections.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Swindlehurst and Partners on 11 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.
Our key findings were as follows:
Staff were clear about who to report incidents and near misses to. Information about safety was recorded and investigated.
Patients were not fully protected from harm because systems and processes in place were not robust enough. The action identified from a (dispensing) significant event had not been carried out.
One medicine safety alert had not been acted on to check that relevant patients received safe prescribing of this medicine. Some vaccine storage was not maintained at an appropriate temperature and staff failed to prevent unauthorised access. Near misses identified in the dispensary did not include details of lessons learnt. The serial numbers of prescription forms loaded into printers were not logged.
Staffing levels were monitored and reviewed when a member of staff left or when service level dictated. Safe arrangements were in place for staff recruitment that protected patients from risks of harm.
The practice was visibly clean and measures taken to prevent unnecessary infections.
Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff possessed the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their treatment.
There were low numbers of patients who were carers. Efforts had been made to identify carers however, more action was needed. Identified carers were provided with support and guidance.
Information about how to make a complaint was readily available and easy to understand. We saw that complaints were dealt with appropriately.
There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us they felt well supported by senior staff. Management proactively sought feedback from patients which it acted on. Management had failed to follow-up on actions regarding a significant event, a medicine alert and that lessons were learnt from near misses in the dispensary. In the absence of the infection control lead there was no skilled deputy lead to take over the role.
However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
The provider must:
Implement a robust process to ensure appropriate action is taken following receipt of patient safety alerts.
Processes and systems to be implemented in relation to medicines management to ensure safe and appropriate storage of vaccines and prescription forms for use in printers.
In addition the provider should:
Ensure lessons are learnt from incidents and near misses.
Develop ways to monitor and improve patient satisfaction.
Ensure training and support for staff to enable them to carry out their roles, i.e. Infection Control.
Where, as in this instance, a provider is rated as inadequate for one of the five key questions or one of the six population groups it will be re-inspected no longer than six months after the initial rating is confirmed. If, after re-inspection, it has failed to make sufficient improvement, and is still rated as inadequate for any key question or population group, we will place it into special measures. Being placed into special measures represents a decision by CQC that a service has to improve within six months to avoid CQC taking steps to cancel the provider’s registration.
Chief Inspector of General Practice