Archived: BMI The Paddocks Clinic

Below is a summary of what we found. the summary describes what people who used the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People felt safe using the service and staff were also confident their safety needs had been considered in relation to the security of the building and the resources. We were told that staff were skilled and competent to carry out their responsibilities effectively. There were rigorous checks to ensure clinical staff were competent and had the necessary qualifications and references to work for the provider.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

There were arrangements in place for the safe storage and disposal of medical equipment.

We found the service to be safe.

Is the service effective?

Clinical records demonstrated people's consent was obtained and their GP was kept informed of treatment plans. Some staff worked across three sites to ensure they had a good working knowledge of the care provided at the other sites. People told us they were offered appointments promptly and we saw people were seen at the time of the scheduled appointment.

We found the service to be effective.

Is the service caring?

One person described the staff as "brilliant". We observed staff talking to people in a courteous and friendly way. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of what privacy and dignity meant and we saw the environment was conducive to maintaining people's privacy and dignity needs.

Staff appeared motivated and keen to deliver high quality care to people using the service.

We found the service to be caring.

Is the service responsive?

Managers told us people could be offered very prompt appointments and gave an example that if a person required a cardiology appointment they could be seen the same day.

People told us their appointments had been offered in a timely manner from the point of referral.

We saw the provider was responsive to feedback in relation to the environment and when shortfalls had been noticed, additional resources were allocated to ensure standards were maintained.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us their managers were accessible to them and staff felt confident to raise any concerns, or ideas, with their manager.

There were quality assurance processes in place to assess the environment and the daily meetings enabled staff to remain focused on the objectives and values of the service.

We found the service to be well-led.

We looked at five sets of patient records. These included two new referrals as well as patients who had previous treatments or consultations. Patient records included details of the initial referral, the reason for referral and any underlying factors or pre-existing conditions which were relevant to the consultation or treatment. Details of any known allergies were highlighted. This showed patient's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

Patients said they felt very confident of the clinical quality and safety of the treatment they received. They spoke highly of the standard of care and attention of all staff from administrative, cleaning, reception and nursing to consultants. "First class all round" was a typical comment made.

The majority of staff we spoke with said they felt well-supported. They indicated they were given some formal supervision and appraisal, although most of them told us the informal system of support was more important to them. They confirmed they had occasional meetings and support could be accessed by telephone or e-mail. A system of 'communication cell' meetings for managers was now in place. This enabled BMI to spread information about significant issues throughout the three local sites. This enhanced consistency of practice and reduced the risks of staff feeling isolated from the decision making process.

The storage for records was secure, with secure keypad access. We saw staff closed the doors once they had finished working in the records storage area. This confirmed records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed.

We discussed the process for archiving 'old' records and disposing of them once they were no longer required. This was robust and secure and meant records were kept for the appropriate period of time and then destroyed securely.

We spoke to administrative, nursing and management staff. Most of the staff we spoke with told us the management and support arrangements in place were satisfactory. All of the staff told us they received appropriate training for their roles.

The people we spoke with confirmed they had been provided with opportunity to provide feedback on the care and treatment they received. They told us they thought they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. However, the people we spoke with said they were very satisfied with their experience at The Paddocks Clinic.