Louise Stickland

This was the first time we inspected the service. We rated it as requires improvement because it required improvement in safe, effective and well led with good in caring and responsive because;

• The provider did not always keep up-to-date with their mandatory training. The mandatory training list was not comprehensive. The provider did not control infection risk well. The service did not perform hand hygiene audits or have effective cleaning and records.
• The service did not formally ask for proper assurance of the identity of the primary care givers. Feedback was adhoc and not collected in a structured way.
• There was no process to manage patient records in the event of the provider ceasing trading.
• The provider did not run services using reliable information. The provider did not monitor the effectiveness of the service. There was no evidence of quality monitoring through regular audit. The provider did not have a risk register. Some policies were not always fit for purpose and did not contain up to date references.

However:

• The service was provided by a sole practitioner who managed appointments in order to care for patients and keep them safe. Risks to patients were assessed, acted on and good care records were kept. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• The provider was competent. The provider worked for the benefit of patients, advised primary care givers about feeding and how to breast feed if there were issues and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• The provider treated patients and primary care givers with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to primary care givers.
• People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.