High Street Practice, Royston, Barnsley.High Street Practice in Royston, Barnsley 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, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 15th November 2019 Contact Details:
Ratings:For a guide to the ratings, click here. Further Details:Important Dates:
Local Authority:
Link to this page: Inspection Reports:Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.
10th January 2017 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at High Street Practice on 11 January 2016. Although, the overall rating for the practice was good, we found the safe domain required improvements . The full comprehensive report on January 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for High Street Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 10 January 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 11 January 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 in the safe domain and good overall.
Our key findings were as follows:
At the previous inspection , we found the practice did not have a named infection control lead, or a schedule for the cleaning of carpets and curtains. In addition, some of the sterile single use equipment had expired beyond the date the manufacturer recommended it to be used by. At this inspection, we found the practice had a named lead for infection control. The practice manager had completed a comprehensive infection prevention and control risk assessment. Where the risk assessment had identified any risks, staff had implemented an action plan to mitigate these. For example, the staff had replaced the carpets in clinical areas with vinyl flooring, replaced the curtains in clinical areas with disposable curtains, and set up a system to check the expiry dates of single use equipment. We saw that staff had labelled the waste boxes for sharp instruments correctly.
At the previous inspection, we found the staff had not effectively monitored the refrigerators used for the safe storage of vaccines. At this inspection, we found the practice had investigated and learned from our findings at the previous inspection and had implemented a system to make sure staff monitored the fridge temperatures correctly.
At the previous inspection, we found medication was passed the date for safe use and there wwere unlocked medications in the treatment room. At this inspection, we found the practice had purchased locked cupboards for the storage of medicines and that staff had implemented a new computer database to log all the practice medications on. This identified when stock was low and if the medication had passed the date of safe use.
At the previous inspection we found the practice had inadequate arrangements in place to respond to emergencies and major incidents. At this inspection we found the practice had implemented a system to ensure emergency medication was checked and safe to use. The practice had purchased a defibrillator and instructed staff on how to use it. Staff checked the oxygen and defibrillator weekly. However, the resuscitation airways did not have a expiry date. The nurse agreed to check these were safe to use.
At the previous inspection we found that staff had not secured the blind cords in accessible areas with a cleat; this could pose a risk to children's safety. The practice manager explained that they had removed the blinds in the reception area and staff were always present in the consulting and treatment rooms. Following the inspection the practice manager provided us with a risk assessment to show how the risks were managed.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
11th January 2016 - During a routine inspection
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at High Street Practice on 11 January 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
The areas where the provider must make improvements are:
In addition the provider should:
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
6th February 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. The provider had a recruitment policy in place to ensure that staff were suitable and authorised to be employed in their roles.
25th September 2013 - During a routine inspection
Patients expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We saw that patients were given information and support with regards to treatment options and that staff maintained patient’s privacy and confidentiality. One patient who spoke with us said they were treated with respect and the care they received was “Fantastic.” We saw comments from other patients recorded in surveys completed in 2013. Patients had written “No improvements to service needed” and “I am happy with the service”. We found the environment to be clean, tidy and organised. We saw there were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. One patient who spoke with us told us “The hygiene and cleanliness of the practice is okay, but the environment is looking a bit worn and dreary.” Patients who used the service were potentially at risk of receiving care from staff who were not considered suitable to work with vulnerable people as effective recruitment procedures and checks had not been undertaken before staff began work. Staff had received appropriate professional development and training to ensure they could meet the needs of the patients who used the service. Staff could tell us who they would contact if they were concerned about child protection issues or abuse of patients. The practice had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service that patients received.
|
Latest Additions:
|