This practice is rated as requires improvement overall.

(Previous rating February 2015 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires Improvement

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Inadequate

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Moseley Medical Centre on 4 December 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• Feedback from patients gathered during our inspection was positive about the way staff treat people. Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• There were gaps in the practices processes for managing risks, this including formally assessing and managing risk whilst awaiting the results of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for chaperones, gaps in the practices recruitment systems as well as systems for checking staff immunisation against infection diseases.
• At the time of our inspection we found that the monitoring of patients on a specific high-risk medicine had lapsed.The practice did not always effectively utilise their patient record system and in areas coding did not take place. This contributed towards inaccurate information from the practices patient record system. At the time of our inspection we also found that records were not updated to reflect action taken where children failed to attend their hospital appointments, and the practice were not effectively coding these on their system.
• There was no evidence of regular historical practice meetings to support that learning from significant events and complaints was routinely discussed as a practice team.
• Staff worked together and with other health and social care professionals to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued. Some staff we spoke with highlighted that they were unsure of who to go to with an infection control concern in the absence of the part-time infection control lead.
• The practice had a programme of quality improvement activity and there was evidence of monitoring of the outcomes of care and treatment that took place. However, performance for cancer screening was below local and national averages across various screening areas.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

• Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
• Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
• Ensure recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed.

Where a service is rated as inadequate for one of the five key questions or one of the six population groups, it will be re-inspected no longer than six months after the report is published. If, after re-inspection, the service has failed to make sufficient improvement, and is still rated as inadequate for any key question or population group or overall, we will place the service into special measures. Being placed into special measures represents a decision by CQC that a service has to improve within six months to avoid CQC taking steps to cancel the provider’s registration.

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 Moseley Medical Centre on 4 February 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. We also inspected the quality of care for six population groups these were, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people, older people, people in vulnerable groups and people experiencing poor mental health. We rated the care provided to these population groups as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• There were systems in place to ensure patients received a safe service. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, reviewed and addressed.

• There were effective arrangements in place to identify, review and monitor patients with long term conditions. Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.

• Patients said they were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of the practice population. There were services aimed at specific patient groups. The complaints procedure was accessible to patients.

• There was visible leadership with defined roles and responsibilities and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

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

In addition the provider should:

• Develop a robust recruitment policy that ensures appropriate checks are undertaken prior to staff commencing their post including satisfactory written references.

• Update the audit of compliance with the Equality Act (2010) and ensure that practice implements the requirements including providing appropriate access for patients with a physical disability.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice