Walton Village R, 172 Walton Village, Walton, Liverpool.
Walton Village R in 172 Walton Village, Walton, Liverpool is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 24th April 2017
Walton Village R is managed by Walton Village R.
Contact Details:
Address:
Walton Village R Walton Village Medical Centre 172 Walton Village Walton Liverpool L4 6TW United Kingdom
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Walton Village R on 25 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the 25 April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Walton Village R on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced comprehensive carried out on 21 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 25 April 2016. This report includes our findings in relation to those requirements.
Overall the practice is rated as good for providing services.
Our key findings were as follows:
The practice was a small family practice which had been at the heart of the community for many years and patients received a continuity of care from GPs.
The practice premises were in need of refurbishment, but plans for this were on hold. The practice had limited disabled access and no hearing loop. There was access to translation services.
The practice had addressed the majority of the issues identified during the previous inspection 25 April 2016. Improvements included: the management of health and safety of the premises, increased audits which had improved clinical outcomes for patients; and improved methods of shared learning for staff. However, more work was required in terms of quality assurance of some of the systems to mitigate safety risks. For example, for uncollected prescriptions, safeguarding and cleaning of the premises.
The practice did have oxygen for use in medical emergencies but no defibrillator. The practice had carried out a risk assessment as to how they would manage a medical emergency without a defibrillator.
Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation.
Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. However, at this inspection not all staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and we were concerned about the lack of some GP’s understanding around issues of consent. We were advised training had been arranged.
Patient survey data and comment cards reviewed demonstrated that patients found staff helpful and that they providing a caring service and good access to appointments but that there were problems with waiting times beyond allocated appointment times. The practice had identified this problem by monitoring survey results and had put some measures in place to tackle this issue.
The practice did have a list of carers but only had 9 patients on the register and not all staff were clear about what support was offered to carers.
Information about services and how to complain was available. The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service; including having a patient participation group (PPG) and acted, where possible, on feedback.
The provider should:
Regularly review the risk assessment for the need for a defibrillator to ensure they can effectively respond to any medical emergency should there be a delay in the ambulance response time.
Monitor safeguarding cases and have a system for monitoring patients where there is a safeguarding concern.
Have due regard to the national standards for the cleaning of practice premises.
Have a system to monitor and act on uncollected prescriptions to ensure patients receive their medication in a timely fashion.
Ensure all clinicians update their knowledge around issues of consent.
Encourage the uptake of carers on the practice register and make it clear to both staff and patients what support is available from the practice.
Have a system to monitor patient group directives (PGDs) for the authorisation of immunisations.
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Walton Village R on 25 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the 25 April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Walton Village R on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced comprehensive carried out on 21 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 25 April 2016. This report includes our findings in relation to those requirements.
Overall the practice is rated as good for providing services.
Our key findings were as follows:
The practice was a small family practice which had been at the heart of the community for many years and patients received a continuity of care from GPs.
The practice premises were in need of refurbishment, but plans for this were on hold. The practice had limited disabled access and no hearing loop. There was access to translation services.
The practice had addressed the majority of the issues identified during the previous inspection 25 April 2016. Improvements included: the management of health and safety of the premises, increased audits which had improved clinical outcomes for patients; and improved methods of shared learning for staff. However, more work was required in terms of quality assurance of some of the systems to mitigate safety risks. For example, for uncollected prescriptions, safeguarding and cleaning of the premises.
The practice did have oxygen for use in medical emergencies but no defibrillator. The practice had carried out a risk assessment as to how they would manage a medical emergency without a defibrillator.
Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation.
Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. However, at this inspection not all staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and we were concerned about the lack of some GP’s understanding around issues of consent. We were advised training had been arranged.
Patient survey data and comment cards reviewed demonstrated that patients found staff helpful and that they providing a caring service and good access to appointments but that there were problems with waiting times beyond allocated appointment times. The practice had identified this problem by monitoring survey results and had put some measures in place to tackle this issue.
The practice did have a list of carers but only had 9 patients on the register and not all staff were clear about what support was offered to carers.
Information about services and how to complain was available. The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service; including having a patient participation group (PPG) and acted, where possible, on feedback.
The provider should:
Regularly review the risk assessment for the need for a defibrillator to ensure they can effectively respond to any medical emergency should there be a delay in the ambulance response time.
Monitor safeguarding cases and have a system for monitoring patients where there is a safeguarding concern.
Have due regard to the national standards for the cleaning of practice premises.
Have a system to monitor and act on uncollected prescriptions to ensure patients receive their medication in a timely fashion.
Ensure all clinicians update their knowledge around issues of consent.
Encourage the uptake of carers on the practice register and make it clear to both staff and patients what support is available from the practice.
Have a system to monitor patient group directives (PGDs) for the authorisation of immunisations.
We found that patients care and treatment was assessed, planned and delivered in order to meet the individual patient's needs. Care and treatment plans were fully documented and reviewed via a computerised records system.
The practice had up to date child and adult protection policies and procedures in place. This information included contact details for staff to raise concerns with the appropriate agencies.
We found that the practice had made appropriate adjustments to ensure that people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.
We found that patients had their privacy, dignity and independence respected. The service provides information that supports people that use the service to enable them to make decisions about their care, treatment and support. We spoke with one patient who confirmed this.
We found that patients were not always protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse occurring, in line with local authority requirements. Staff we spoke with were not knowledgeable in safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
We found the provider had effective systems in place to deal with comments and complaints, including providing patients with information to support them to raise a concern. One of the patients attending the practice told us they would be confident to raise concerns and they were sure appropriate action would be taken.
©2019 Care Services, all rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without permission of the copyright holders.
