The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Castle Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

3-4 York Place, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, YO11 2NP 0330 123 9278

Provided and run by:
IntraHealth Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

16 September 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Castle Health Centre on 12th to 16th September 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

The ratings for each key question are:

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring – Not rated

Responsive – Not rated

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 28th June 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 Castle Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.

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 included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing and obtaining feedback from staff using electronic questionnaires.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records.
  • 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 found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There were adequate systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety with embedded systems in place to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. The practice actively managed and encouraged patient engagement with the practice and with other services, taking a holistic approach to their health and well-being. Regular multi-disciplinary working was evident.
  • 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 were high levels of satisfaction across all staff. Staff were proud of the organisation as a place to work and spoke highly of the culture.
  • There was evidence of systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation.

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

  • Improve the system for gathering and maintaining a record of staff vaccinations.
  • Take action to introduce sepsis training for practice staff.
  • Take action to address the small number of issues identified from our clinical searches.

We found one area of outstanding practice:

  • We received letters of commendation from North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)/Integrated Care Board (ICB) for the work the staff at Castle Health Centre had provided, stepping up at short notice to provide primary medical services to a group of Afghan nationals arriving in the area as part of the Afghan relocation scheme (ARAP) for families evacuated under the Operation Pitting programme in August 2021. The CCG/ICB said they were impressed by the commitment and professionalism shown in ensuring a very high-quality clinical service in very difficult circumstances. Castle Health Centre continue to provide a service for this group equating to over 200 patients. Other letters of praise were also received and described staff at the practice as developing a constructive working relationship with other agencies including North Yorkshire County Council and the Refugee Council (integration provider). Castle Health Centre had previously registered all the Syrian refugee families in Scarborough.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

28 June 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Castle Health Practice on 28 June 2017. 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 a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

Nurses for the homeless, employed by the practice, delivered an outreach service to homeless patients registered at the practice. They responded to these patients by offering a flexible approach to working hours and locations. They regularly signposted patients to breakfast clubs which were run from the local homeless centre. The nurses had good links with this service. Where patients had not responded to calls, letters or appointments, practice staff made a welfare visit. The practice collected material donations of clothing, bedding and other such things and delivered them regularly to the homeless shelter.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

The practice should consider improving the identification of patients on the practice list who are carers. They should use this register of patients to identify and offer systems of support to them.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice