Redburn Park Medical Centre

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Redburn Park Medical Centre on 25 April 2019 to check that the practice had made improvements following our previous inspection in January 2019.

At the last inspection on 30 January 2019 we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

• The practice did not have appropriate systems in place for the safe management of medicines.
• There were gaps in the systems to assess the risk of, prevent, detect and control the spread of infections.

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 (previous rating – January 2019 good) and now good for providing safe services.

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

• The practice had taken action to address all concerns and had implemented safe arrangements to manage infection control and medicines.

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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Redburn Park Medical Centre on 30 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme (Previous rating March 2015 – outstanding overall and for providing responsive and well led services, and good for providing safe, effective and caring services).

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 and good for all population groups, except families, children and young people, which we rated as outstanding. However, we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services.

We rated the practice as outstanding for providing responsive services for families, children and young people because:

• The practice had responded to the needs of children and young people with poor mental health and had developed accessible information packs for children and their parents; these packs included guidance on where and how to get support, the packs had been noted as good practice and had been adopted by six other practices in the locality.
• There was a high teenage pregnancy rate in the local area; the practice provided highly responsive services for young women to help address this issue.

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

• The practice did not have appropriate systems in place for the safe management of medicines.
• There were gaps in the systems to assess the risk of, prevent, detect and control the spread of infections.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective, caring, responsive and well led services because:

• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
• Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
• The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. 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.

We saw some areas of outstanding practice including:

The practice effectively engaged with the local population, to ensure that despite the high levels of deprivation and child poverty, low employment rates and a transient population (10% turnover each year), the practice achieved 100% of the QOF points available. The exception reporting rate was well below local and national averages (exception reporting is the removal of patients from QOF calculations where, for example, the patients decline or do not respond to invitations to attend a review of their condition or when a medicine is not appropriate) and there was a high childhood immunisation uptake rate.

There were high levels of teenage pregnancies in the local area. One of the practice nurses was a trained sexual health nurse who was able to provide advice and guidance, as well as fitting contraceptive implants. Urgent appointments were made available every day, for example, for those patients who needed their contraceptive injection renewed. An embargoed appointment slot was in place each week for fitting contraceptive implants.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

• Ensure that care and treatment is provided in a safe way.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice