• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: St Werburgh Medical Practice

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

98 Bells Lane, Hoo, Rochester, Kent, ME3 9HU (01634) 250523

Provided and run by:
St Werburgh Medical Practice

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile
Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at St Werburgh Medical Practice. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

19 June 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection, at short notice to the provider, on 19 June 2020 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to these breaches in regulations. This report only covers findings in relation to those requirements. The practice was not rated as a consequence of this inspection.

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Werburgh Medical Practice on 5 and 6 November 2019 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirement in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 20 November 2018. The overall rating for the practice was inadequate and the service was placed into special measures. Warning notices were issued against Regulation 12 (1) Safe care and treatment), Regulation 17 (1) Good governance and Regulation 18 (1) Staffing, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The details of these can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for St Werburgh Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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 found the provider has made some improvements including:

  • Staff had received appraisals since our inspection on 5 and 6 November 2019.
  • Management of the cold chain for the safe storage of medicines.

We found the provider had not made sufficient improvement in providing safe services regarding:

  • There were gaps in the systems and processes to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • There were gaps in arrangements to assess, monitor and manage risks.
  • Staff did not always have the information they needed to deliver safe care and treatment.
  • The practice did not have systems for the appropriate and safe use of medicines.
  • The practice did not always learn and make improvements when things went wrong.

We found the provider had not made sufficient improvement in providing effective services regarding:

  • Patients’ needs were not always assessed, and care and treatment was not always delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance.
  • Staff did not work together and with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment.

We also found additional concerns in providing responsive services regarding:

  • The practice did not communicate changes in opening hours clearly to patients.
  • Complaints were not always satisfactorily handled in a timely way and complaints were not used to improve the quality of care.

We found the provider had not made sufficient improvement in providing well-led services regarding:

  • Leaders could not demonstrate that they had the capacity and skills to deliver high quality sustainable care.
  • Leaders did not demonstrate that they had a credible strategy to develop sustainable care.
  • The overall governance arrangement were ineffective.
  • The practice did not have clear and effective processes for managing risks and issues.
  • Systems and processes were not operating as leaders intended.
  • The practice did not always act on appropriate and accurate information.
  • There had not been sufficient improvement since our last inspection to address concerns.

We took urgent enforcement action and served an Urgent Suspension notice on the service provider’s registration in respect of the regulated activities carried out at the registered location (St Werburgh Medical Practice, including the two branch practices at Stoke Village Hall and The Healthy Living Centre Gillingham). The urgent suspension took effect on 24 June 2020. We took this action as we believe that a person will or may be exposed to the risk of harm if we did not do so.

We are mindful of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

5 and 6 November 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Werburgh Medical Practice on 20 November 2018. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the November 2018 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for St Werburgh Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

After our inspection in November 2018 the practice wrote to us with an action plan outlining how they would make the necessary improvements to comply with the regulations.

We carried out an announced comprehensive follow-up inspection on 5 and 6 November 2019 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 20 November 2018. This report covers findings in relation to those requirements.

This practice is now rated as Inadequate overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Inadequate

Are services effective? – Inadequate

Are services caring? – Requires Improvement

Are services responsive? – Inadequate

Are services well-led? – Inadequate

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing safe services because:

  • The practice’s systems, processes and practices did not always help to help keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Staff did not always have the information they needed to deliver safe care and treatment to patients.
  • The arrangements for managing medicines in the practice had not sufficiently improved and did not always keep patients safe.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing effective services because:

  • Care and treatment were not always delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance.
  • Quality improvement activity was insufficient.
  • Two members of staff had not received a regular appraisal.
  • Clinical supervision for relevant staff was limited.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services because:

  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Since our last inspection in November 2018, results of the national GP patient survey relating to patients’ experience of services provided at St Werburgh Medical Practice had deteriorated for two indicators.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing responsive services because:

  • The practice did not always have enough staff to deliver services to meet patients’ needs.
  • Patients were no longer able to access care and treatment from the practice within an acceptable timescale for their needs.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment as well as their experience of services at St Werburgh Medical Practice had deteriorated and was below (significantly in some cases) than local and national averages.
  • Almost all patient feedback received by the Care Quality Commission indicated they found it difficult to get through to the practice by telephone and were not always able to book appointments that suited their needs.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing well-led services because:

  • Leadership was complex and did not always function as intended by the provider.
  • Improvements to governance arrangements were insufficient.
  • Improvements to their processes for managing risks, issues and performance were insufficient.
  • The practice had not acted sufficiently on the feedback they had received from the public.
  • Systems and processes for learning and continuous improvement were not yet sufficiently effective.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced persons are deployed to meet the fundamental standards of care and treatment.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Revise how patients with disabilities can summon assistance to open the entrance door of the Stoke Village Hall branch surgery and consider carrying out a disability risk assessment of the sites where services are provided.

I am placing the service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again in six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of Inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Special measures will give people who use the service reassurance that the care they get should improve.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth MB BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

20 November 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Requires Improvement overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires Improvement

Are services effective? – Requires Improvement

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Werburgh Medical Practice on 20 November 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had systems, processes and practices to help keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Staff had the information they needed to deliver safe care and treatment to patients.
  • The arrangements for managing medicines in the practice did not always keep patients safe.
  • The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong.
  • Performance for one of the diabetes related indicators for 2017 / 2018 was below local and national averages.
  • Exception reporting for some QOF indicators relating to patients with long-term conditions and people experiencing poor mental health was much higher than local and national averages.
  • Not all staff had received an appraisal within the last 12 months.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment from the practice within an acceptable timescale for their needs.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was in line with local and national averages. However, we received seven comments cards that indicated patients were not always able to book a routine appointment at a time that suited their needs.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
  • Governance arrangements were not always effective.
  • The practice’s processes for managing risks, issues and performance were not always effective.
  • The practice involved patients, the public, staff and external partners to support high-quality sustainable services.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal necessary to enable them to carry out the duties.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to implement and monitor the effectiveness of fire safety and legionella management action plans to reduce identified risks.
  • Continue with planned basic life support training for the member of staff who was not up to date.
  • Consider revising the appointments system to increase availability to further meet patients’ needs.
  • Continue with plans to set up a patient participation group.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.