• Doctor
  • GP practice

Bewdley Medical Centre

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Dog lane, Bewdley, Worcestershire, DY12 2EG (01299) 402157

Provided and run by:
The Wyre Forest Health Partnership

All Inspections

13 July 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Bewdley Medical Centre on 13 July 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Requires Improvement.

The ratings for each key question are:

Safe - Requires Improvement

Effective – Requires Improvement

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 6 October 2017, 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 Bewdley Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection included a comprehensive review of information and a site visit where we inspected safe, effective and well-led care. During our inspection we looked at one area of providing responsive care: Access to the service, this was not rated, and we did not identify any concerns with regards to access to the service.

How we carried out the inspection.

This inspection included a comprehensive review of information and a site visit where we inspected safe, effective and well-led care. During our inspection we looked at one area of providing responsive care: Access to the service, this was not rated, and we did not identify any concerns with regards to access to the service.

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, considering the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently. Therefore, as part of this inspection we completed clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussed the findings with the provider. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

The inspection also included:

  • Requesting and reviewing evidence and information from the service
  • A site visit
  • Conducting staff interviews
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider

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 Requires Improvement overall

We found that:

  • The practice did not routinely operate effective systems to ensure the appropriate and safe use of medicines, including medicines optimisation. After reviewing a sample of clinical records for patients with long term conditions and or prescribed high risk medicines we found evidence where reviews were overdue.
  • We found records where blood results were not within the recommended timeframe; therefore, repeat prescribing were not routinely managed in line with national prescribing guidelines.
  • Safety systems and risk assessments were in place in most areas; however, fire drills were not completed regularly within a 12 month period.
  • The practice regularly reviewed and acted on serious events and incidents, these incidents were reviewed as part of the wider partnership and learning points were shared amongst each location with the aim to improve safety at each location.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • GPs did not routinely follow up patients who had received treatment in hospital or in out of hours services.
  • Systems were in place to monitor patient access, using information from patient feedback and complaints the practice implemented a triage system where patients were able to speak with a doctor directly through the practice booking process.

We found one breach of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Strengthen systems and policies to ensure they are effective and functioning as intended.
  • Ensure risks to patients and staff are mitigated.
  • Ensure that oversight including policies and procedures are operating as intended.

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

23 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bewdley Medical Centre on 23 August 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • The practice was the largest of the six sites which formed the Wyre Forest Health Partnership (WFHP). Functions such as human resources and finance were carried out by staff at the WFHP main office, which was located in the Bewdley premises.
  • There was a clear system for reporting and recording significant events, which was shared across the six sites in the WFHP. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents and near misses. Learning from internal and external incidents was discussed at practice level and at monthly WFHP meetings, which were attended by key staff from the six sites.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in accordance with current evidence based guidelines. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results from the National GP Patient Survey 2017 showed that patients thought that they were treated with compassion, courtesy and respect and that clinical staff involved them in discussions about their care and treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. The practice responded to complaints and made improvements to the level of service as a result.
  • Patients we spoke with said that they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • A GP had initiated the home visiting service, which had been rolled out to all six practices in the WFHP. It was so successful that the GP had been asked to provide a service specification for two local Clinical Commissioning Groups.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us that they felt supported by the GP partners and management team. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff, patients and the Patient Participation Group, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice