Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (The practice was previously inspected in March 2015 and rated Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive at West Bromwich Partnerships for Health on 15 November 2017. We inspected this location as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• The lead GP engaged with the local community by attending places of worship to encourage uptake of reviews for long term conditions and screening.
• Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients felt they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
• Patients we spoke with 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.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• The practice was able to demonstrate a governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care.
• There was evidence that the practice had sought feedback and implemented changes to improve.
• The practice was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. The practice had achieved training status and there were two associate GP trainers working at the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Continue to engage with patient groups to improve uptake of cervical cytology.
• Achieve improvement in the number of carers identified in order to offer them support.
• Carry out learning disability reviews for all patients on the register

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (The practice was previously inspected in March 2015 and rated Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive at West Bromwich Partnerships for Health on 15 November 2017. We inspected this location as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• The lead GP engaged with the local community by attending places of worship to encourage uptake of reviews for long term conditions and screening.
• Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients felt they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
• Patients we spoke with 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.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• The practice was able to demonstrate a governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care.
• There was evidence that the practice had sought feedback and implemented changes to improve.
• The practice was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. The practice had achieved training status and there were two associate GP trainers working at the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Continue to engage with patient groups to improve uptake of cervical cytology.
• Achieve improvement in the number of carers identified in order to offer them support.
• Carry out learning disability reviews for all patients on the register

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We undertook this follow up visit in response to concerns that we had identified during our previous inspection of the service in February 2014. Our visit was discussed and arranged with the provider in advance so that any disruption to people’s care and treatment were minimised.

At our previous inspection we identified that the provider did not have effective systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service that the practice delivered. At the time of the inspection we judged that this had a minor impact on people who used the service and asked the provider to take action. Following the inspection in February 2014, the provider sent us an action plan which set out how they would address the issues raised.

During this inspection we spoke with the practice manager, registered manager and a receptionist. The registered manager no longer worked at this location and had recently put in an application to remove their registration with the Care Quality Commission. We also reviewed various documents that were made available to us. We found that action taken by the provider since our last inspection was inadequate to effectively manage the risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of patients and others who may be at risk.

On the day of the inspection we spoke with a reception staff, a practice nurse and the GP. We spoke with a practice manager who had been recently appointed and their predecessor who continued to work at this practice in the same capacity on a part time basis.

We also spoke with five patients during our visit and another patient who was part of the Patient Participation Group (PPG). All the patients were positive about their experience at the surgery. One patient said, “Very good.” Another patient said, “It is an awful lot better, particularly under Dr X.”

We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that met patients’ needs. Patients we spoke with told us they were happy with the level of care they had received.

Staff had received training in safeguarding to protect vulnerable adults and children. Appropriate guidance was available for staff to follow if abuse was suspected.

We found appropriate arrangements were being undertaken to manage the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Staff we spoke with told is they were supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard.

The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. However, we saw that the practice did not manage all risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of patients, staff and visitors.