We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Telesilla Gueret Wardle on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Dr Telesilla Gueret Wardle, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Telesilla Gueret Wardle on 15 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. However the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing an effective service as no two cycle clinical audits had been completed. The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Telesilla Gueret Wardle on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 9 August 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the areas for improvement identified in our previous inspection on 15 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to the progress made since our last inspection.
.
Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings were as follows:
The practice has now begun to undertake two cycle clinical audit but these were yet to be completed.
Carers were appropriately identified and support was being provided.
Portable appliance testing (PAT) had been carried out.
However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
The provider should:
To continue to review and conduct clinical audit cycles for patient quality assurance.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at DR Telesilla Gueret Wardle (Christchurch Hall Surgery) on 15 November 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
The practice did not have access to a defibrillator (AED – a portable electronic device that analyses life threatening irregularities of the heart including ventricular fibrillation and is able to deliver an electronic shock to attempt to restore a normal heart rhythm.) not had risk assessed the need for one on the premises. Following the inspection the practice provided evidence of the purchase of a defibrillator.
We saw no evidence that audits were driving improvements to patient outcomes.
There was no evidence of a log of cleaning of clinical equipment such as spirometer and ear irrigator. Following the inspection, evidence was provided of the formalisation of an equipment cleaning system (previously undertaken informally by the nurse and healthcare assistant) with evidence of cleaning logs.
No PAT testing had been undertaken. However following the inspection the practice provided evidence that the test had been booked. No date has been currently set for the test.
Emergency medicines were easily accessible to staff in a secure area of the practice and all staff know of their location. Not all the required medicines were present at the time of the inspection however the medicines that we checked were in date and stored securely. Following the inspection the practice provided evidence of the purchase of the remaining medicines needed for any emergency.
There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
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.
Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and 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.
Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
The practice 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 practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
The provider was aware of and complied with the requirement of the duty of candour.
In addition the provider should:
Carry out clinical audits and re-audits to improve patient outcomes.
Look at ways to identify more carers in order to provide support.
Ensure portable electrical appliance (PAT) testing is undertaken.
Chief Inspector of General Practice