The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Oxfordshire Community Endoscopy

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Windrush Medical Centre, Welch Way, Witney, Oxfordshire, OX28 6JS 07825 524794

Provided and run by:
InHealth Endoscopy Limited

All Inspections

23 October 2018

During a routine inspection

Oxfordshire Community Endoscopy is operated by InHealth Endoscopy Limited and provides adult community endoscopy services at Windrush Health Centre in Witney, Oxfordshire.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 23 October 2018.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

Our rating of this service is Good overall.

We found good practice in relation to endoscopy care:

  • The service managed staffing effectively and always had enough staff with the appropriate skills, experience and training to keep patients safe and to meet their care needs.

  • The service controlled infection risk well and had suitable premises and equipment. Staff kept themselves, equipment and the premises clean.

  • Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient. They kept clear records and asked for support when necessary. The service had arrangements to recognise and manage risks to patients in line with national guidance.

  • The service managed patient safety incidents well. During the reporting period there were no never events or serious incidents.

  • The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness. The service had received Joint Advisory Group (JAG) accreditation in 2014.

  • Managers monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used findings to improve them. The intended outcomes overall were being achieved.

  • Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness. Observations showed how staff interacted compassionately with patients who were treated with dignity and respect.

  • The senior team were available, approachable and supportive throughout recent senior staffing changes.

However

  • People could not always access the service when they needed it. Waiting times from referral to test (RTT) were not always achieved.

  • We were not assured all staff explained sedation adequately to patients during the pre-procedure discussion.

  • The service had a clinical GP lead but no dedicated clinical nurse leadership.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)

30 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People who used the service were given appropriate information and support. Prior to appointments people were sent an information pack. People told us that they received explanations of their care and treatment, which they understood. One person said "I was sent lots of information and I’ve asked lots of awkward questions since I’ve been here. All my questions have been answered. I can’t fault any of the information I was given, It was everything I needed”.

People's privacy and dignity were respected. We observed staff interactions with people were friendly and respectful. We saw that consulting room doors was closed and privacy curtains in the recovery room were closed at all times when people were being consulted or received treatment. Privacy gowns and dignity shorts were provided if needed.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People were informed about their right to withdraw consent at any time before or during the procedure. One person told us “If I wanted to stop it [the procedure] at any time I was told to raise my hand”. This showed us that people knew how to change any decisions about examination, care, treatment and support that had been previously agreed.

People were offered the option of having medication to make them sedated during the procedure. We observed a nurse supporting a person who was anxious about the procedure. The nurse acted in a friendly and comforting way. We spoke with this person following the procedure, they told us that their anxieties were reduced significantly by the reassurance that the nursing staff provided. This demonstrated that people's emotional, as well as their physical needs were considered.

We saw that people reports were faxed to the referrer on the same day as the procedure. People were given a copy of their report and the endoscopist explained this to them. This meant that people received the care, treatment and support they needed without delay .

People were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment. Hygienic hand washing facilities and protective personal equipment, such as gloves, was readily available. Arrangements were in place for the safe disposal of sharp and contaminated items. We saw that equipment was stored and checks were made to ensure that it was clean and fit for purpose.

We found that people were cared for by staff who felt supported and were trained to meet their needs.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. People's comments were listened to and acted on.