The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Burbury Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

311 Burbury Street, Birmingham, West Midlands, B19 1TT (0121) 551 3804

Provided and run by:
Burbury Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Burbury Medical 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 Burbury Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

9 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Burbury Medical Centre on 9 July 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

22 June 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Burbury Medical Centre on 21 July 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the July 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Burbury Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 22 June 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to improve in areas that we identified in our previous inspection on 21 July 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to these improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • During our previous inspection data from the July 2016 national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice below others for some aspects of care. The practice was able to demonstrate actions they were taking to improve in the areas identified. An internal survey carried out by the practice demonstrated positive feedback from patients.
  • When we inspected the practice in July 2016 we saw the practice had identified 18 carers (0.5% of the list size). We asked the practice to review their systems and processes to ensure more carers were identified so that they could be offered appropriate support. At this follow up inspection data we looked at showed 65 carers (2% of the practice list size) had been identified.
  • At our July 2016 inspection, we saw that the practice had carried out an equality access audit in April 2016. The audit identified that a hearing loop was required but this had not been actioned. At this follow up inspection, we saw that a hearing loop had been purchased.

However, the practice should:

  • Ensure the introduction of Saturday morning opening arrangement is reflected on the practice website.
  • Ensure patients are informed that they could to be seen before 9.30am at another surgery as part of the collaborative working arrangement.

Consider conducting a patient survey specifically to monitor satisfaction in relation to opening hours in view to making further improvements.  

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Burbury Medical Centre on 21 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • We received mixed responses from patients about the availability of appointments.
  • The national patient survey showed that the practice achievement was variable.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The practice was located in a residential building which had been adapted to treat patients and meet their needs. The practice had carried out an audit to assess its accessibility to disabled people against best practice standards. However, some findings from the assessment were still to be actioned.
  • There was a senior GP partner with two junior partners. One of the junior GP partners took on the leadership role along with the practice manager. Staff were clear on the leadership structure and felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure all findings from the equality audit are actioned.
  • Continue to ensure areas of concern identified in the national surveys, comments cards and feedback from patients are addressed, including about consultations with GPs and nurses.
  • Systems or processes should be reviewed to ensure more carers are identified so they can be offered appropriate support.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our last inspection in May 2014, we found that recruitment processes were not robust and could put patients at risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff. At the time of the inspection we judged that this had a minor impact on patients who used the service. We set compliance actions and told the provider to improve.

We undertook this inspection as a 'desk top' review. This meant that we requested information from the provider as evidence of how they were now meeting this standard. We then made a judgement on the evidence they provided. We found that the provider had made the necessary improvements.

Procedures were now in place to ensure appropriate checks were made before staff began working at the practice.

1 May 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We previously inspected Dr Alam surgery on 1 August 2013. We found that improvements were required and asked the provider to submit an action plan outlining how they intended to address the issues we had identified.

At this inspection visit we looked to see what improvements had been made. We met and spoke with two GP partners, an assistant practice manager and two reception staff. We also spoke with six patients so that we could get their views in regards to the service provided. We were unable to speak with the senior GP partner and the practice manager because they were away on leave.

We saw that improvements had been in relation to care and welfare of patients. The on-going building work to the surgery we saw at the last inspection had been completed and risk assessments were in place to protect patients.

We saw that some improvements were made to the recruitment process, however we identified that further improvements were required.

There saw that there were opportunities for patients to feedback on the quality of the care provided so that areas for further improvement could be identified.

1 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the surgery to establish that the needs of people using the service were being met. On the day of the inspection we spoke with four staff members, three GPs and the practice manager. We also spoke with six patients and one person who was accompanying their parent to an appointment. The people we spoke with had mixed views about the treatment they had received. One patient we spoke with said: 'I'm happy with the service, the doctors are really good and respectful here'. Another patient said: 'He (the GP) can be very rude sometimes when you are telling your problem. Sometimes he's very kind, sometimes he ignores you, most of the time he ignores you, he doesn't bother'. Similarly another patient when asked if care met their needs told us 'alright, but could do with more care, I want them to check me properly'.

We saw evidence that there was on-going building work at the surgery. We looked at how risk had been managed at the premises and found that robust risk management and identification systems were not in place. This meant that people were not protected against the risks of unsafe premises.

We found that there were inadequate recruitment processes in place. This meant that patients were not fully protected from risks of unsuitable people providing care.

We reviewed complaints and noted that the complaints process had not been followed. This meant that patients could not be confident that their views were listened to.