The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Hillfoot Health

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

70 Hillfoot Road, Liverpool, Merseyside, L25 0ND

Provided and run by:
Hillfoot Health

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

10 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced assessment of Hillfoot Health on 10 November 2023. The assessment focused on the responsive key question.

Following our previous inspection on 1 March 2019 the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions. The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Hillfoot Health on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The service continues to be rated as good for the responsive key question as a result of the findings of this focused assessment. The practice continues to be rated as good overall as this was the rating given at the last comprehensive inspection.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive – Good

Well-led - Good

Why we carried out this review

We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers.

We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know colleagues are doing this while demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. In this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. These assessments of the responsive key question include looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

How we carried out the review

This assessment was carried out remotely. It did not include a site visit.

The process included:

  • Conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing
  • Reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • Reviewing data we hold about the service
  • Seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders

Our findings

We based our judgement of the responsive key question on a combination of:

  • what we found when we met with the provider
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • During the assessment process, the provider highlighted the work they are doing to maintain and improve the responsiveness of the service for their patient population.
  • The provider organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs.
  • People were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Complaints were listened to, managed appropriately and used to improve the quality of care.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

1 March 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hunts Cross Health Centre on 1 March 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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.

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.
  • 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.

There was an element of outstanding practice:

  • There was an emphasis on risk assessments, monitoring and audits that underpinned the services provided. Documentation reviewed was of a high standard and clearly identified actions needed and responsibilities.
  • The whole practice team constantly evaluated how safety systems could be improved and implemented additional safety netting systems to minimise risk.

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

  • Ensure practice nurses receive level three safeguarding training in line with recently updated guidance.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 Janaury 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hunts Cross Medical Centre on 21 January 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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 and untoward incidents.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents and near misses. Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Patients were treated with care, compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. They were given time at appointments and full explanations of their treatment. They valued their practice and felt confident with the skills and abilities of staff.

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. For example the proposals to house its own pharmacy within the new build.
  • The practice worked well with the patient participation group (PPG).
  • Patients said they could usually get an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care. Working patients expressed that they would like to have access to extended hours appointments for convenience.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour. The Regulation: Duty of Candour (Regulation 20 Health and Social care Act 2008 (Regulated activities) Regulations 2014) ensures that providers are open and transparent with people who use their services in relation to care and treatment.

There were areas of practice where the provider could make improvements. The provider should:

  • Ensure patient safety and other relevant alerts and guidance are followed and actions taken are recorded.

  • Add an automated external defibrillator (AED) to their emergency equipment in line with professional guidance and national standards.

  • Consider the introduction of extended hours to support the needs of working patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice