Archived: Long Street Surgery

On our recent visit we found that the provider had made a number of improvements in this area. We saw that information about the complaints procedure was displayed in the waiting area. We found evidence that complaints, accidents, and significant events had been logged, investigated, and appropriate action taken.

We found that the provider had undertaken a number of risk assessments related to the safety of the premises. A number of repairs and other improvements had been carried out. There was a new cleaning contract which was monitored. A business continuity plan was in place.

We found that the provider had audited the staff files and that all staff had applied for Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. There was also information about what training staff had received and what was planned.

We saw evidence that the Patient Participation Group (PPG) had been meeting regularly with a GP and practice manager attending. A PPG is a group set up to represent the views of patients and to raise concerns or suggestions about the service. The PPG had been involved in developing an action plan taking into account the results of a patient survey.

People who used the service told us they felt they were treated with dignity and respect and that treatment options were explained to them. One person told us that the nurse had clearly explained a procedure to her and asked for her consent before going ahead. Another said the nurses were 'always friendly and helpful'.

We found that the service's policy on consent did not include the necessary information about the Mental Capacity Act and staff had not received training.

The service could not demonstrate that that it was taking reasonable steps to protect children and vulnerable adults from abuse. The practice's policy was inadequate and not all staff were aware of it. Not all staff had received training about what to do if they suspected abuse.

People told us they were generally satisfied with the services provided. Several told us that it had become easier to get appointments and that the receptionists were 'helpful'. One person said 'it was very difficult to get in but has been much better over the last few months'. The service regularly monitored demand for appointments and could show this was being met.

We found that the service was not keeping all information securely. We found personal information on a desk and in folders on an open bookcase.

Overall people were satisfied with the appointment system and, when necessary, were given an appointment on the same day. However, some people said that on occasions they had to wait a long time after their scheduled appointment time to see their GP.

The service did not have adequate processes in place to ensure good infection control. Areas for improvement included staff training and the provision of appropriate equipment.

There were no measures in place in relation to the adequate maintenance of the premises and grounds. The service did not have appropriate measures in place to ensure the security of the premises.

Processes around recruiting and supporting staff were not robust. Personnel records were incomplete and there were no suitable arrangements for supporting staff or professional development.

The provider did not have an effective system in place for monitoring the quality of the service or to seek the views of people using the service. Although there were complaints procedures in place, people didn't have the information to inform them of how they could make a complaint.

We found the service did not have adequate record management procedures in place. Records were not well organised and could not be located promptly.