Archived: Rossendale Minor Injury Unit

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Rossendale Minor Injuries Unit on 28 September 2017. Overall the service is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Patients’ care needs were assessed and delivered in a timely way according to need. The service was meeting the Clinical Commissioning Group’s Local Quality Requirements.
• There was a system in place for recording, reporting and learning from significant events. While we saw that action was taken to improve processes following analysis of documented significant events, the cascade of feedback to staff was not always efficient.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, although in some cases further documentation was needed in order to provide a thorough audit trail to show that required actions had been completed.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• There was a system in place that enabled staff access to patient records, and the out of hours staff provided other services, for example the local GP and hospital, with information following contact with patients as was appropriate.
• Patient feedback we received was wholly positive about their experiences accessing the service. They said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• The service worked proactively with other organisations and providers to develop services that supported alternatives to hospital admission where appropriate and improved the patient experience.
• The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Continue to embed the new meeting framework to enable shared discussion of significant event analysis (SEAs), peer review and quality improvement.

• Complete and document a formal infection prevention and control audit of the environment in order to effectively monitor compliance with relevant protocols.

• Second cycle clinical audits should be completed to monitor the effectiveness of improvements made to care and treatment practices.

• The planned programme of staff appraisals should be completed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice