Archived: Thorpe Park Clinic

Updated 29 November 2021

Thorpe Park Clinic is operated by Fountain Diagnostic Limited, one of three providers within The LivingCare Group. The LivingCare Group was founded in 2002 and is a set of companies across Yorkshire delivering various health services.

Thorpe Park Clinic undertakes; endoscopy services, including sigmoidoscopy (examination of the large intestine) and colonoscopy (examination of the large bowel), and outpatients services, including dermatology, ear, nose and throat, and minor surgery. Thorpe Park Clinic did not provide general anaesthetic (GA), so patients requiring a GA would be referred for treatment by a local NHS trust. However, during endoscopic procedures, patients were, depending on their individual needs, offered conscious sedation (CS) or a throat spray.

We conducted an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 14 September 2021. This service had not previously been inspected and therefore did not have a rating.

The location is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

Diagnostic and screening procedures

Treatment of disease, disorder and injury

Surgical Procedures

The location has a manager registered with the CQC.

The main service provided by Thorpe Park Clinic was medicine. Where our findings on medicine– for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the medicine service.

Updated 29 November 2021

We rated this service as requires improvement because:

Although we found the service largely performed well, it did not meet legal requirements relating to governance, safe care and treatment and fit and proper persons: directors, meaning we could not give it a rating higher than requires improvement.

Staff did not always receive the appropriate training on how to safeguard patients in line with best practice.

The service did not always use systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.

Staff did not always record detailed discussions of the consent process.

Managers did not always assess the effectiveness of the service, staff compliance of adhering to policies was not audited and actions were not always taken from audits to improve outcomes for patients.

Leaders did not always identify relevant risks and issues and therefore could not take action to reduce their impact.

The service did not display complaint information making it difficult for patients to share negative feedback.

The service did not have a robust process to ensure equipment was properly maintained. The design of rooms used to deliver bad news had not been considered.

However:

The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training, and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. The service controlled infection risk well. Safety incidents were managed well and learned lessons from them.

The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and had processes in place to make sure everyone completed it.

Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Managers made sure staff were competent and had access to good information.

Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives and supported them to make decisions about their care.

Staff treated patients 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 patients, families and carers.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and took account of patients’ individual needs. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities and were focused on the needs of patients receiving care.

Updated 29 November 2021

Although we found the service largely performed well, it did not meet legal requirements relating to governance, safe care and treatment and fit and proper persons: directors, meaning we could not give it a rating higher than requires improvement.

• Staff did not always receive the appropriate training on how to safeguard patients in line with best practice.
• The service did not always use systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.
• Staff did not always record detailed discussions of the consent process.
• Managers did not always assess the effectiveness of the service, staff compliance of adhering to policies was not audited and actions were not always taken from audits to improve outcomes for patients.
• Leaders did not always identify relevant risks and issues and therefore could not take action to reduce their impact.
• The service had no formal agreement to access a paediatric nurse in the event they needed advice about children or young people.
• The service did not display complaint information making it difficult for patients to share negative feedback.
• The service did not have a robust process to ensure equipment was properly maintained. The design of rooms used to deliver bad news had not been considered.

However:

• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training, and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment
• Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. The service controlled infection risk well. Safety incidents were managed well and learned lessons from them.
• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and had processes in place to make sure everyone completed it
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Managers made sure staff were competent and had access to good information.
• Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives and supported them to make decisions about their care.
• Staff treated patients 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 patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and took account of patients’ individual needs. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities and were focused on the needs of patients receiving care

Children and young people was a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was medicine. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the medicine section.

Updated 29 November 2021

We rated this service as requires improvement because:

Although we found the service largely performed well, it did not meet legal requirements relating to governance, safe care and treatment and fit and proper persons: directors, meaning we could not give it a rating higher than requires improvement.

Staff did not always receive the appropriate training on how to safeguard patients in line with best practice.

The service did not always use systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.

Staff did not always record detailed discussions of the consent process.

Managers did not always assess the effectiveness of the service, staff compliance of adhering to policies was not audited and actions were not always taken from audits to improve outcomes for patients.

Leaders did not always identify relevant risks and issues and therefore could not take action to reduce their impact.

The service did not display complaint information making it difficult for patients to share negative feedback.

The service did not have a robust process to ensure equipment was properly maintained. The design of rooms used to deliver bad news had not been considered.

However:

The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training, and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. The service controlled infection risk well. Safety incidents were managed well and learned lessons from them.

The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and had processes in place to make sure everyone completed it.

Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Managers made sure staff were competent and had access to good information.

Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives and supported them to make decisions about their care.

Staff treated patients 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 patients, families and carers.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and took account of patients’ individual needs. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities and were focused on the needs of patients receiving care.

Updated 29 November 2021

Although we found the service largely performed well, it did not meet legal requirements relating to governance, safe care and treatment and fit and proper persons: directors, meaning we could not give it a rating higher than requires improvement.

• Staff did not always receive the appropriate training on how to safeguard patients in line with best practice.
• The service did not always use systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.
• Staff did not always record detailed discussions during the consent process.
• Managers did not always assess the effectiveness of the service, staff compliance of adhering to policies was not audited and actions were not always taken from audits to improve outcomes for patients.
• Leaders did not always identify relevant risks and issues and therefore could not take action to reduce their impact.
• The service did not display complaint information making it difficult for patients to share negative feedback.
• The service did not have a robust process to ensure equipment was properly maintained. The design of rooms used to deliver bad news had not been considered.

However:

• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training, and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.
• Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. The service controlled infection risk well. Safety incidents were managed well and learned lessons from them.
• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and had processes in place to make sure everyone completed it.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Managers made sure staff were competent and had access to good information.
• Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives and supported them to make decisions about their care.
• Staff treated patients 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 patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and took account of patients’ individual needs. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities and were focused on the needs of patients receiving care.

Outpatients is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was medicine. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the medicine section.