Riversdale Surgery in Wylam is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 30th June 2017
Riversdale Surgery is managed by Riversdale Surgery.
Contact Details:
Address:
Riversdale Surgery 51 Woodcroft Road Wylam NE41 8DH United Kingdom
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Riversdale Surgery on 15 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. However, we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Riversdale Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We carried out an announced focused inspection on 30 May 2017, to confirm the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirement in relation to the breach in regulation that we had identified in our inspection, on 15 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to that requirement.
Overall the practice is rated as good. Our key findings from this inspection were as follows:
The provider had complied with the requirement notice we set following our previous inspection visit. In particular, we found that there were suitable arrangements for the proper and safe management of medicines, and these helped to make sure care and treatment was provided to patients in a safe way.
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Riversdale Surgery on 15 November 2016. Overall, the practice is rated as good.
We found the practice had made a number of improvements since our previous inspection, on 29 July 2015, when they were rated as requires improvement. Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
Staff had taken action to address the concerns we had previously identified regarding the lack of governance in relation to the management of potential health and safety risks, and a failure to ensure staff had completed appropriate training. However, during this inspection, we found the arrangements for managing medicines were not always effective. Otherwise, all other risks to patients’ safety were effectively managed.
There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system for reporting and recording significant events.
Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Services were tailored to meet the individual needs of patients and were delivered in a way that ensured flexibility, choice and continuity of care.
Clinical staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
The practice used the information collected for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and their performance against national screening programmes, to monitor and improve outcomes for patients. The QOF data, for 2014/15, showed the practice had performed very well in obtaining 99.6% of the total points available to them, for providing recommended care and treatment. (Just before we published this report, the QOF data for 2015/16 was released. This showed that the practice had achieved an equally good QOF performance, with an overall achievement of 99.3% compared to the local Clinical Commissioning Group average of 98.2% and the national average of 95.3%.)
There was a strong patient-centred culture. Patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
The practice and its branch surgery had good facilities and were well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
Clinical leadership encouraged openness and transparency, and promoted an open culture, where staff felt well supported.
We saw one area of outstanding practice:
Data from the NHS National GP Patient Survey of the practice, published in July 2016, showed patient satisfaction with access to appointments, was very good. For example: 99% of patients said the last appointment they got was convenient, compared to the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) average of 93% and the national average of 92% 94% said they were able to get an appointment to see or speak to someone the last time they tried, compared with the local CCG average of 86% and the national average of 85%; 81% said they usually waited 15 minutes or less after their appointment time, compared to the local CCG average of 73% and the national average of 65%. In addition, patients were very satisfied with the caring approach of staff. For example, 97% said they found receptionists at the practice helpful, compared to the local CCG average of 89% and the national average of 87%.
The areas where the provider must make improvements are:
Ensure medicines are managed safely and appropriately. Specifically, make sure there are rigorous systems in place for ensuring:
Patient Specific Directives and Patient Group Directions are used in line with national guidance.
Staff follow the practice’s policy regarding the storage of medicines at the required temperatures.
Prescription pads are stored securely in line with national guidance.
However, there were also areas where the provider should make improvements. The provider should:
Record all dispensing ‘near-misses’, including those highlighted by the accuracy checking scanner used as part of the dispensing process.
Improve how the practice identifies patients who are also carers.
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Riversdale surgery on 29 July 2015. The practice has a main surgery, Riversdale Surgery at Wylam and a branch surgery, Oaklands Medical Centre at Prudhoe. We visited both of these locations as part of the inspection. Specifically, we found the practice to require improvement for providing safe and effective services and for being well led. They were rated as good for providing caring and responsive services.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
The practice had a system in place for reporting, recording and monitoring significant events. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. The practice used opportunities to learn from incidents to support improvement.
Some risks to patients and staff were not assessed and systems and processes were not fully implemented to keep patients safe. For example, there was a health and safety risk assessment but this had not been reviewed since the year 2000 and the portable appliance testing (PAT) was overdue.
Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. We saw a system of clinical audit to improve outcomes for patients.
Staff had received some training but not all appropriate to their roles; for example, they had not received health and safety or information governance training. There was an appraisal system in place; however staff appraisals were not up to date.
Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Data showed that patients rated the practice higher than the clinical commissioning group (CCG) and national averages for being caring.
Patients told us and CQC comment cards indicated that they had no problems obtaining an appointment. They said this was an area the practice were good at.
The practice dealt with complaints however, information for patients was not in line with recognised guidance and contractual obligations for GPs in England.
The practice did not have a documented vision or business development plan for the future; however they knew the challenges they faced in the future. There was a leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. However, some of the systems and processes which should have been in place to keep patients and staff safe were not established.
However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
Importantly, the provider must:
Ensure staff receive appropriate training in order to carry out the duties they perform and maintain accurate records of this.
Ensure systems and processes are established and operated effectively in order to assess, monitor and improve the quality of service provided in carrying out the regulated activities.
In addition the provider should:
Consider setting up a patient participation group.
Take steps to improve the information available to patients regarding the complaints system.
Consider using a maximum-minimum fridge thermometer in the dispensary fridge.
People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. One person told us, “The GPs know me very well and what I need.” Other people described the service provided by the practice as, “Absolutely fine”, “Really excellent” and “Great. No problems.” However, we found the practice did not have in place systems to ascertain patients views of the services provided.
People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
The provider had in place a recruitment policy and people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.
©2019 Care Services, all rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without permission of the copyright holders.
