We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Handsworth Wood Medical Centre on 6 January 2017. The overall rating for the practice was good, with a requires improvement rating for providing responsive services. The full comprehensive report on the January 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Handsworth Wood Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 28 February 2018 to confirm that the practice had carried out improvements in relation to the areas of concern we identified in our previous inspection on 6 January 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• We saw there was appropriate information for carers to direct them to other avenues of support.
• The practice had discussed national GP patient survey results and devised actions to try and improve areas of poor satisfaction.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

• Continue to explore options to improve telephone access further.
• Continue to monitor the effectiveness of actions taken to improve patient satisfaction.
• Continue to advertise appointment times and ways to access the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Handsworth Wood Medical Centre on 6 January 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• 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 decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• Patients said they found it difficult to make an appointment in advance with a named GP.
• Patients highlighted through feedback that they found it difficult to access the practice by telephone at peak times and appointment access could be improved.
• 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 requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Review and consider GP patient survey results and ensure these are acted upon to make improvements to services for patients.

• Review and consider information available for carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During our inspection we spoke with eight patients face to face and three by telephone. We spoke with eight members of staff.

When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to. One patient told us: "They ask if you want to go ahead with it." We found that when minor surgery had been carried out written consent had been requested from patients before the surgery had commenced.

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided. The patients we spoke with said they were satisfied with their care. A patient told us: "The care is excellent." Patients received their medicines when they needed them and had regular reviews.

Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to. This ensured that patients were protected from harm.

We found that staff had received appropriate training for the roles they carried out. They were also monitored by their line manager and had regular appraisals. This indicated staff had been appropriately assessed regarding their competency.

The provider had a system in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. They regularly obtained opinions from patients about the standards of the services they received. This meant that on-going improvements could be made by practice staff.