• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Ivan Camphor

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

396 New Hey Road, Wirral, Merseyside, CH49 9DA (0151) 677 2172

Provided and run by:
Dr Ivan Camphor

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Ivan Camphor 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 Dr Ivan Camphor, you can give feedback on this service.

25 October 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Dr Ivan Camphor on 25 October 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - good

Effective - good

Caring - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Responsive - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Well-led - good

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Ivan Camphor 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. We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.

We inspected the key questions of:

Safe, Effective and Well Led. We also assessed access to GP services under the key question- Responsive.

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 found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Clinicians assessed patients according to appropriate guidance, legislation and standards and delivered care and treatment in line with current evidence-based guidance.
  • There were sufficient staff who were suitably qualified and trained.
  • Patients were treated with respect and were involved in decisions about their care.
  • The practice understood its patient population and adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of its patients.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • There was an effective governance framework in place in order to gain feedback and to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the services provided.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

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

  • Take steps to improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening and childhood immunisations.
  • Take steps to improve prescribing of antibacterial medicines, hypnotics and psychotropics.

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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

27 February 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection May 2015 – 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 inspection at Dr Ivan Camphor (Heatherlands Medical Centre) on 27 February 2018 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.

  • There were systems in place to mitigate safety risks including health and safety, infection control and dealing with safeguarding.
  • 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.

  • Staff involved patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

  • The practice had reviewed and introduced new measures in order to improve access to appointments Patients reported they could access appointments when needed, routine, urgent appointments and home visits were available.

  • The practice 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 practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service; including having an active patient participation group (PPG) and acted, where possible, on feedback.
  • Staff worked well together as a team, knew their patients well and all felt supported to carry out their roles.

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review significant events and complaints annually in order to identify themes and trends.

  • Review the practice’s safeguarding policy to include reference or links to related legislation and guidance.

  • Review the practice’s training plan to identify core training at frequency and level appropriate to roles in order to monitor training effectively.

  • Review the protocol for dealing with patient letters to identify specific criteria to follow.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

7 January 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This is the report of findings from our inspection of Dr Ivan Camphor, Heatherland Medical Centre. The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide primary care services.

We undertook a planned, comprehensive inspection on 7 January 2015 at the practice location in Wirral, Merseyside. We spoke with patients, relatives, staff and the practice management team.

The practice was rated overall as good. They provided effective, responsive care that was well led and addressed the needs of the population it served. The service was safe, caring and compassionate.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Patients spoke highly of the practice. They said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided in ways useful to them to help them understand the treatment choices and the care available.
  • The practice provided good care to its population that was responsive to their health and socio economic needs. Patients were listened to and feedback was acted upon.
  • The practice had developed a range of services on site and in collaboration with others in order to provide safe, effective and responsive services to the local community.
  • The practice was responsive in developing care and support to patients with dementia.
  • The practice was well-led having transparent and accessible leadership providing multidisciplinary approaches to accessible services.
  • The practice had a good track record for maintaining adult and child safeguarding.

In addition the provider should:

  • Ensure that any patient making a complaint is given clear information about what they can do or who they can go to if they remain unsatisfied with the outcome of the initial investigation into their compliant by the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice