We carried out a review of the data available to us about South Birmingham Urgent Treatment Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about South Birmingham Urgent Treatment Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the South Birmingham GP Walk-in Centre on 28 March 2017. Overall the service 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 a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
The service had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
The service 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 service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the service complied with these requirements.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
South Doc Services Limited provides a GP led walk in centre service at Selly Oak Health Centre including ‘out-of-hours’ primary medical services between 6.30pm and 8.00pm weekdays and 8.00am to 8.00pm at the weekend and on bank holidays.
During our inspection we spoke with three patients who were using the out-of-hours service and seven members of clinical and administrative staff. This included the medical director who was also the registered manager at this location. Patients that we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service that they received.
There were systems in place to ensure the safety of patients which included learning from incidents, a clean and hygienic environment and the safe use of medicines administered on site.
However, we were concerned that the provider did not have robust arrangements in place to ensure patients were protected from the risks of unsuitable staff. Up to date criminal records checks (Disclosure and Barring Service checks) were not undertaken to support decisions about the suitability of new staff before they were employed.
We found the service was effective in meeting the wide ranging needs of patients that presented at the service and the varying levels of demand that were placed on the service. Care received by patients was audited and information shared with patient’s usual GP to support continuity of care between different providers.
Patients received a caring service. They told us that they were involved in discussions about the health care they received. We observed patients being treated with sensitivity by reception staff. However, we found few opportunities for patients to provide feedback about the care they had received.
The service was responsive to the needs of patients. Staff had access to equipment, guidance and where possible information about the patient to support clinical decisions and effectively respond to those in urgent need. However, the lack of oxygen as part of the emergency equipment meant staff may not always be able to immediately respond to a medical emergency that may arise. Access to the premises could be improved for patients with mobility difficulties however, the provider was limited by the constraints of the premises which it did not own.
Staff described the service as well-led. Staff at all levels felt supported and information was routinely shared with staff via email. There was good support for new members of staff. However, we found that there were limited opportunities for established staff to formally discuss issues relating to their work. Performance was monitored through audits but it was not always clear what action had been taken in response to findings.