The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Clarendon Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Clarendon Street, Hyde, Cheshire, SK14 2AQ (0161) 368 5224

Provided and run by:
Clarendon 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 Clarendon 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 Clarendon Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

02 November 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Clarendon Medical Centre on 2 November 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

The key questions are rated as:

Safe – Requires improvement

Effective – Good

Caring – Good (rating awarded at the inspection November 2015)

Responsive – Good (rating awarded at the inspection November 2015)

Well-led – Good

The provider was last inspected November 2015 and was rated Good overall and in all the key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Clarendon Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We undertook this inspection as part of a selection of services rated good and outstanding who have not been inspected for five years or more.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews by telephone and using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • Gaining feedback from staff using staff questionnaires
  • A shorter 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 have rated this practice as good overall

We have rated this practice as good for providing effective and well-led services because:

  • The practice in the main 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.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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.

Following this inspection, we have rated the practice requires improvement for providing safe services. Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Complete the infection prevention and control action plan and embed systems to ensure improvements are maintained.
  • Ensure the new processes put in place for monitoring patients prescribed high risk medicines are embedded.
  • Continue to monitor prescribing multiple psychotropics for patients is in line with guidance.
  • Continue work to improve cervical screening uptake.
  • Ensure the new processes put in place regarding safety alerts are maintained.
  • Continue to monitor that Patient Group Directions (PGDs) are signed.

Following the inspection, the practice provided details of the actions they planned to take to improve. For example, they have developed a plan to address concerns raised in the key question safe, which included developing an overarching governance system to monitor patients prescribed high risk medicines and to ensure actions are taken following receipt of safety alerts. There was also an infection prevention and control action plan in place.

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

01/12/2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Clarendon Medical Practice on 01 December 2015. 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 to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, including those relating to recruitment checks.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it was not always easy to get through to the practice to make an appointment with a GP, however when they were able to get through to the surgery they were able to make appointments and appreciated the ease of access via the open surgery twice a week.
  • Urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • 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 proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure actions and outcomes of significant events are recoreded and reviewed

  • Ensure multidisaplinary meeting and palliative care meetings are minuted and actions and outcomes recorded.

  • Ensure when carrying out audits they complete a full audit cycle.

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

We carried out a review of compliance after identifying concerns in relation to fires safety during our last inspection on 27th January 2014.

We were provided with an action plan which outlined the action Clarendon Medical Centre would take to become compliant.

We spoke to the practice manager and requested evidence that the actions they told us they would take to become compliant were in place. Evidence provided included, records of staff training, maintenance records and details of fire drills. The evidence confirmed the provider had taken action to ensure that people accessing the premises were protected against risks associated with unsafe premises.

27 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We found that patients who used the service were provided with appropriate information about the care, treatment and support choices available. Patient's told us they were given good information about their treatments by GPs. They told us GPs explained the treatment to them, they felt involved and they were consulted about their treatment.

Patients told us they felt their GP listened to them and this was important to them.

Patients described the care they received from Clarendon Medical Centre as 'excellent care'.

Another patient said they received 'good care and treatment' each time they visited the surgery.

One patient said: 'The GPs are fantastic. I can't fault them, they really listen and I think they care.'

We found that patients had access to a good range of health promotional information and advice.

We found patients' experience of accessing appointments at the surgery varied. Some patients told us it was difficult to access an appointment and other patients told us they hadn't experienced any difficulties.

We found that staff were trained to undertake and perform their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us they received good support from the practice manager and from GPs at the practice.

The practice had a number of systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of service patients received. This ensured that patient's health care needs were monitored and responded to appropriately.

We found that improvements were needed to ensure that the premises were safe and were being adequately maintained.