Chorlton Family Practice, 1 Nicolas Road, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester.
Chorlton Family Practice in 1 Nicolas Road, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning services, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 6th April 2017
Chorlton Family Practice is managed by Drs Adab, Chavdarov, Chen, Chew-Graham, Hill, Ratcliffe and Siebert.
Contact Details:
Address:
Chorlton Family Practice Chorlton Health Centre 1 Nicolas Road Chorlton-cum-Hardy Manchester M21 9NJ United Kingdom
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Chorlton Family Practice on 4 February 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement with the key questions of safe and effective rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the February 2016 inspection can be found on our website at http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-544250271
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 20 March 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 4 February 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.
Overall the practice is now rated as good.
Our key findings were as follows:
At our inspection in February 2016 we found that appropriate recruitment checks had not always been conducted prior to employment and that some GP and locum GP files were incomplete. We also saw that appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had not been carried out for staff acting as chaperones. (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable). At this inspection, we saw evidence that all staff recruited since our last inspection had been checked appropriately prior to employment. We also saw that information held at the practice for GPs and locum GPs was complete and that all staff at the practice had had a DBS check.
During our previous inspection we found that some staff had not received appraisals in the preceding 12 months although these had been scheduled for dates following our visit. At this inspection visit we saw that all staff had received an appraisal within the last 12 months.
At our inspection in February 2016 we found that the system in place to monitor and audit the traceability of the prescription paper used in the practice was insufficient. At this inspection, the practice showed us evidence that all prescription paper in the practice was held and logged securely.
We saw in February 2016 that improvements indicated by audits conducted by the practice were not always implemented or monitored. We viewed audit work undertaken by the practice since the inspection in 2016 and saw that the audit process was comprehensive and supported practice quality improvement.
During our previous inspection we saw that lessons learned as a result of patient safety alerts and incident reports were not always shared to ensure that action was taken to improve safety in the practice. At this inspection we saw that the process for dealing with patient safety alerts and incident reports was sound and that patient safety was not compromised.
At our inspection in February 2016 we saw no evidence that there was a system to check the expiry dates of drugs in the practice. We saw at this inspection that there was a system in place and that expiry dates were checked regularly.
During our inspection in February 2016, we found that there were systems lacking in relation to staff making patient home visits. There was no policy for staff lone working and the blood samples that were collected were not always managed appropriately. During this inspection we saw that there were safe systems in place for the transport of patient blood samples and that staff were protected with a comprehensive lone worker policy.
At our inspection in February 2016 we observed that reception staff handled patient urine samples inappropriately, there was no policy in place and staff had not received appropriate training. At this inspection, we saw that staff had all received training in handling patient samples, there were gloves available if necessary and that there was a policy in place.
At our previous inspection, we saw that practice policies in relation to patient care were not always reviewed in order to ensure that they were consistent with current guidance. We also found that some staff were not always aware of practice policies. At this inspection, we saw that there was a process in place to update policies when necessary in line with current guidance and staff demonstrated that they were aware of practice policies and where to find them.
During our inspection in February 2016 we found that staff acting as chaperones had not received comprehensive training. We also found that staff training records were not always accurate. At this inspection, we saw that staff acting as chaperones had received some training and that staff knowledge of procedure was safe although staff told us that further training would be appreciated. We also saw that while staff training records had been improved they were not always up to date and lacked detail.
At our inspection in February 2016 we found that clinical staff meetings were infrequent and lacked structure. We saw at this inspection, that whole practice staff meetings happened every month and that there was an appropriate fixed agenda for these meetings. Clinical staff met at these meetings and also informally on an ad hoc basis.
We found in February 2016 that the practice had no formal strategy for development in place. However, at this inspection we were given a very comprehensive practice report for 2016 and strategic plan for 2017 to 2020.
Following our inspection in February 2016, we published a report that contained information that we had agreed was incorrect and had agreed to remove. We did see evidence that the practice had responded in a timely manner to feedback from sources including the national GP patient survey and information from the NHS Choices website.
The areas of practice where the provider should make improvements are:
Provide further training to staff acting as chaperones.
Update the records of staff training to include completed training dates for all training courses undertaken.
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Chorlton Family Practice on 4 February 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement with the key questions of safe and effective rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the February 2016 inspection can be found on our website at http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-544250271
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 20 March 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 4 February 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.
Overall the practice is now rated as good.
Our key findings were as follows:
At our inspection in February 2016 we found that appropriate recruitment checks had not always been conducted prior to employment and that some GP and locum GP files were incomplete. We also saw that appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had not been carried out for staff acting as chaperones. (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable). At this inspection, we saw evidence that all staff recruited since our last inspection had been checked appropriately prior to employment. We also saw that information held at the practice for GPs and locum GPs was complete and that all staff at the practice had had a DBS check.
During our previous inspection we found that some staff had not received appraisals in the preceding 12 months although these had been scheduled for dates following our visit. At this inspection visit we saw that all staff had received an appraisal within the last 12 months.
At our inspection in February 2016 we found that the system in place to monitor and audit the traceability of the prescription paper used in the practice was insufficient. At this inspection, the practice showed us evidence that all prescription paper in the practice was held and logged securely.
We saw in February 2016 that improvements indicated by audits conducted by the practice were not always implemented or monitored. We viewed audit work undertaken by the practice since the inspection in 2016 and saw that the audit process was comprehensive and supported practice quality improvement.
During our previous inspection we saw that lessons learned as a result of patient safety alerts and incident reports were not always shared to ensure that action was taken to improve safety in the practice. At this inspection we saw that the process for dealing with patient safety alerts and incident reports was sound and that patient safety was not compromised.
At our inspection in February 2016 we saw no evidence that there was a system to check the expiry dates of drugs in the practice. We saw at this inspection that there was a system in place and that expiry dates were checked regularly.
During our inspection in February 2016, we found that there were systems lacking in relation to staff making patient home visits. There was no policy for staff lone working and the blood samples that were collected were not always managed appropriately. During this inspection we saw that there were safe systems in place for the transport of patient blood samples and that staff were protected with a comprehensive lone worker policy.
At our inspection in February 2016 we observed that reception staff handled patient urine samples inappropriately, there was no policy in place and staff had not received appropriate training. At this inspection, we saw that staff had all received training in handling patient samples, there were gloves available if necessary and that there was a policy in place.
At our previous inspection, we saw that practice policies in relation to patient care were not always reviewed in order to ensure that they were consistent with current guidance. We also found that some staff were not always aware of practice policies. At this inspection, we saw that there was a process in place to update policies when necessary in line with current guidance and staff demonstrated that they were aware of practice policies and where to find them.
During our inspection in February 2016 we found that staff acting as chaperones had not received comprehensive training. We also found that staff training records were not always accurate. At this inspection, we saw that staff acting as chaperones had received some training and that staff knowledge of procedure was safe although staff told us that further training would be appreciated. We also saw that while staff training records had been improved they were not always up to date and lacked detail.
At our inspection in February 2016 we found that clinical staff meetings were infrequent and lacked structure. We saw at this inspection, that whole practice staff meetings happened every month and that there was an appropriate fixed agenda for these meetings. Clinical staff met at these meetings and also informally on an ad hoc basis.
We found in February 2016 that the practice had no formal strategy for development in place. However, at this inspection we were given a very comprehensive practice report for 2016 and strategic plan for 2017 to 2020.
Following our inspection in February 2016, we published a report that contained information that we had agreed was incorrect and had agreed to remove. We did see evidence that the practice had responded in a timely manner to feedback from sources including the national GP patient survey and information from the NHS Choices website.
The areas of practice where the provider should make improvements are:
Provide further training to staff acting as chaperones.
Update the records of staff training to include completed training dates for all training courses undertaken.
©2019 Care Services, all rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without permission of the copyright holders.
