The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Black Country Family Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Neptune Health Park, Sedgley Road West, Tipton, West Midlands, DY4 8PX (0121) 521 1555

Provided and run by:
Black Country Family Practice

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

25 May 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 Black Country Family Practice on 22 July 2016. The overall rating for the practice was Good. However, for providing responsive service the practice was rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the July 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Black Country Family Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 25 May 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to improve in areas that we identified in our previous inspection. This report covers our findings in relation to those improvements made since our last inspection on 22 July 2016.

At our previous inspection on 22 July 2016, we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services. The national GP patient survey showed that patient’s satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was significantly below local and national averages. The practice was able to demonstrate improvement in some of the areas identified. In other areas the practice had considered options to improve and was planning to implement improvement strategies. We also saw one area where the practice had not explored any strategies to improve. This was in regards to improving telephone access.

  • During our previous inspection in July 2016 we received mixed feedback on access to appointments. Some patients said they had difficulties obtaining an appointment. At this inspection we were told that one of the GP partners had recently retired and the practice was unable to recruit another GP. This posed further challenges to meet patient needs. After considering a number of options to improve, the practice planned to join a corporate provider which would enable the surgery to access further resources to help effectively meet patient needs.
  • During our previous inspection we saw that the practice achievement on the GP national patient survey were particularly low for ease of getting through on the telephone. At this follow up inspection the practice was unable to demonstrate that they had explored any strategies to improve. The practice assured us that they intended to carry out a patient survey to understand problems around telephone access to better understand the issues so that informed decisions could be made.
  • When we inspected the practice in July 2016, results from the national patient survey showed many patients waited longer to be seen for their appointment than the CCG average. To improve, one of the GP partners had piloted an approach by blocking off 15 minutes off in the morning and in the afternoon to help them catch up. Data we looked at showed improvements had been achieved and the practice was planning to implement this for other GPs.
  • During our previous inspection we found information relating to making a complaint was not easily available as there were no notices or leaflets on display. At this inspection we saw posters displayed in different parts of the reception and waiting areas.
  • During our previous inspection we saw that the practice had identified 111 patients as carers (0.8% of the practice list). At this follow up inspection we saw 132 (1% of the practice list) had been identified as carers.

In addition the provider should:

  •  Explore ways to improve telephone access.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

22 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Black Country Family Practice on 22 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. Opportunities for learning from incidents were maximised.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and generally very well managed. However, despite efforts made access to services remained a concern.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and most patients said they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was not clearly obvious to patients. However, complaints and concerns that were received were appropriately managed in a timely way to support improvements to the quality of care.
  • Not all patients said they found it easy to make a routine appointment although urgent appointments were available the same day if required. Feedback from patients including national patient survey data rated the practice significantly below local and national averages for access.
  • 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 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:

  • Review and implement ways in which the identification of carers might be improved so that they may receive support.
  • Ensure information to support patients to make a complaint is clearly available.
  • The practice should review access to routine appointments and identify how this may be improved. Including a formal review of staffing in response to increasing demands on services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

31 July 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection in January 2014, we found that provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of patients who used the service. We set compliance actions and told the provider to improve.

The purpose of this inspection was to see if improvements had been made since our last inspection in January 2014. We gave the provider short notice of our inspection so that any disruption to patient's care and treatment were minimised. During the inspection we spoke with four members of staff, this included the practice manager and a GP partner.

We saw that the provider had implemented changes to improve the service and to improve the quality of the care.

29 January 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection we spoke with four staff members, the practice manager and two GP partners. We also spoke with six patients about their experience and another patient who was member of the Patient Participation Group (PPG). The PPG member had come in specifically to speak to us. PPGs are an effective way for patients and GP practices to work together to improve the service and to promote and improve the quality of the care.

Most of the patients we spoke with told us that care and treatment they had received was safe and appropriate. One patient we spoke with said, 'Very good, excellent surgery.' However, most patients also said that they had difficulty getting appointments when they needed and they had to wait a long time for their appointment after they arrived at the surgery. One patient we spoke with said, 'The appointment system is diabolical.'

Appropriate guidance was available for staff to follow if abuse was suspected. There were some gaps in safeguarding training for staff but this was being addressed.

We found that staff were supported in the roles they carried out and had regular appraisals to identify developmental opportunities. This meant that they had been adequately assessed as being competent to fulfil their roles.

The provider did not have a robust system in place for monitoring the quality of service provision.