The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Tower Hill Partnership

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

433 Walsall Road, Perry Barr, Birmingham, West Midlands, B42 1BT (0121) 411 0487

Provided and run by:
Tower Hill Partnership

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile
Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile
Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

10 August 2021

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Tower Hill Partnership on 10 August 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

The ratings for each key question are as follows:

Safe - Good

Effective – Requires Improvement

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 24 February 2020, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall and for the key questions, effective, responsive and well led, but inadequate for providing safe services and good for providing caring services.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive review of information which included a site visit to follow up on:

  • A breach in Regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment.
  • A breach in Regulation 17 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Good governance.
  • Areas we identified the provider should make improvements.

How we carried out the inspection/review

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
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short 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 and for all population groups except for families, children and young people and working age people which we have rated as requires improvement.

We found that:

  • Systems had been strengthened to ensure safeguarding registers were monitored effectively. Regular reviews of the registers were carried out to ensure all the relevant information had been recorded appropriately and safeguarding arrangements protected patients from avoidable harm.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This included individual risk assessments for staff, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and enhanced infection control procedures.
  • Governance arrangements had been strengthened to ensure risks to patients were considered, managed and mitigated appropriately.
  • Effective procedures for the management of medicines had been strengthened to ensure patients received the appropriate reviews. This included the appropriate monitoring of patients on high risk medicines.
  • Action plans were in place to review quality indicators and regular audits were completed to improve patient outcomes.
  • Risk management processes were in place and we found assessments of risks had been completed. These included fire safety, health and safety, and infection control. This ensured that risks had been considered to ensure the safety of staff and patients and to mitigate any future risks.
  • 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.
  • Continuous monitoring of practice procedures, clinical outcomes and clinical registers was in place to ensure improvements were maintained.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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

  • Continue to encourage patients to attend cervical screening appointments.
  • Encourage patients to attend childhood immunisation appointments.
  • Continue to strengthen processes for the reviewing and actioning of safety alerts.

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

24 February 20120

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Tower Hill Partnership on 24 February 2020, following our annual regulatory review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This inspection focused on all of the following key questions:

  • Safe
  • Effective
  • Caring
  • Responsive
  • Well-led

We had previously inspected the service in December 2016 and rated the service as good overall. All population groups were rated as good.

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 requires improvement overall. We rated all population groups as requires improvement.

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

  • The practice did not have clear systems and processes to keep patients safe.
  • Safeguarding processes were not embedded to ensure patients were kept safe.
  • The practice did not manage test results in a timely manner.
  • The practice did not have an effective system to respond to all patient safety alerts.
  • The practice did not have appropriate systems in place for the safe management of patients on high risk medicines.
  • The practice did not learn and make improvements when things went wrong.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective and responsive services including all of the population groups because:

  • Patients did not receive effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Patient feedback showed that they could not access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • There was a new leadership team who acknowledged that improvements were required to promote delivery of high-quality care and had taken some action to address this. However, not all actions had been embedded and further improvements were required.

We also rated the practice as good for providing caring services because:

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care. However, some areas of the national GP patient survey in regard to quality of consultation was below local and national averages.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Clarify responsibilities and actions following identification of safeguarding issues by the online GP consultation service.
  • Continue to embed action plan to improve patients experience of their consultation.

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

21 December 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Tower Hill Partnership on 21 December 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.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

  • 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 they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

  • Patients said they could make an appointment in advance with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

  • Patients highlighted via feedback that they found it difficult to access the practice via the telephone at peak times and thought appointment access could be improved.

  • 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 provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Develop processes to monitor the effectiveness of actions taken regarding patient telephone access.

  • Continue with actions to improve availability of appointments

  • Ensure the staff training records accurately reflects training received by staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice