• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Newhall Medical Practice - Newhall Street

Cornwall Buildings, 45 Newhall Street, Birmingham, West Midlands, B3 3QR (0121) 236 6633

Provided and run by:
BHSF Medical Practice Ltd

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

28 June 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 28 June 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The impact of our concerns is minor for patients using the service, in terms of the quality and safety of clinical care. The likelihood of this occurring in the future is low once it has been put right.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The impact of our concerns is minor for patients using the service, in terms of the quality and safety of clinical care. The likelihood of this occurring in the future is low once it has been put right.

Our key findings were:

  • The provider carried out travel vaccinations and private GP consultations as part of their regulated activities with CQC.
  • The systems to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse needed improving. We identified several areas where risks in relation to the management of safe services had not been sufficiently managed or embedded within the service.
  • The premises had recently been refurbished prior to a recent move and appeared well maintained and visibly clean and tidy.
  • The provider had arrangements for the safe management of medicines.
  • Incidents were acted on and used to support learning.
  • Staff were supported with their learning and development needs and had access to training and regular appraisals. However, the provider had not clearly identified core training needs of all staff or had effective systems for monitoring this.
  • There was evidence of clinical improvement activity, while this predominantly related to services that were outside the scope of CQC regulation it was relevant to the regulated services.
  • The provider had effective systems for obtaining consent and patient information was appropriately documented.
  • Feedback from people about the service they received was positive. People who had used the service felt involved in decisions and said that they were treated with dignity and respect.
  • People who used the service received timely care.
  • There was a complaints process and complaints seen were appropriately managed.
  • There was clear leadership to support the running of the service. However, governance arrangements did not adequately identify and address all areas of risks relating to the regulated activities. The provider had also failed to properly register their services.

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

  • Ensure patients are protected from abuse and improper treatment.
  • Ensure effective systems and processes are established to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure the service is properly registered with CQC.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Review systems in place for supporting patients who may experience barriers to accessing information.
  • Review prescribing guidance to include what medicines will or will not be prescribed through the private GP service.

2 May 2013

During a routine inspection

When we last visited the service in March 2013 we found that parts of the premises were not effectively cleaned and that the policy for hygiene and control of infection was out of date. When we visited again on 2 May 2013 we found that improvements had been made. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment and were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

When we visited the service in March 2013 we found that although the service had a clear complaints procedure it was not brought to people's attention to make them aware of how to make comments or complain if they needed to. When we visited again on 2 May 2013 we found that the complaints procedure was on display at the service and on the provider's website.

We were not able to gain people's views on the service because no consultations were booked for the day that we visited.

5 March 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited the service on 5 March 2013 we did not speak with anyone using the regulated services provided by Newhall Medical Practice as few people were attending them that day.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent. We saw from people's records that a form was on file to sign and agree treatment. There was also a system for people to agree consent to specific procedures such as blood tests.

People's needs were assessed and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their plan. People were asked about their personal and their family medical history, notes were kept of diagnosis and a treatment plan was recorded.

We found that there were not sufficient systems to manage and monitor the prevention and control of infection in the service. The policy was out of date and needed to be reviewed. There were arrangements for the disposal of clinical waste and most equipment used was for single use only but parts of the environment were not maintained in a clean and appropriate manner.

There were effective processes in place for recruiting and selecting staff to ensure they were fit to work in the service. References had been followed up, copies of qualifications and certificates of membership of relevant professional bodies were on file and criminal records checks were carried out.

The provider had a written complaint policy and procedure but this was not brought to the attention of people who used the service.