Beacon Medical Centre

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Beacon Medical Centre on 9 November 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - good

Effective - good

Caring – good (not inspected rating carried forward from last inspection)

Responsive – requires improvement

Well-led - good

Following our previous inspection on 17 November 2015, the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Beacon Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection.

We carried out this inspection in line with our inspection priorities.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

• Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
• Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
• Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
• Requesting evidence from the provider.
• A short site visit.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

• what we found when we inspected
• information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We rated the practice Good for providing safe services. We found that:

• The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based practice and had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

We rated the practice Good for providing effective services. We found that:

• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs and was continually monitored.

We rated the practice requires improvement for providing responsive services. We found that:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents. All opportunities for learning from incidents were maximised.
• It was noted the practice was below local and national averages in most indicators in the national patient survey. Although national averages have declined during this time, the practice’s performance had also declined. The practice had implemented an action plan in response to patient feedback, and sent out their own patient questionnaire. Unverified patient feedback from this questionnaire indicated improved patient satisfaction in some areas, although further improvements were required particularly in relation to telephone access.

We rated the practice Good for providing well led services. We found that:

• The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

• Continue efforts to improve the patient experience of accessing the practice by telephone and their satisfaction levels with appointment access, as identified in the most recent National Patient Survey.
• Continue efforts to improve uptake for childhood immunisations.
• Continue to improve uptake for cervical cytology cancer screening.
• Continue to address higher levels of antibiotic prescribing, when compared to the national average.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care