You are here

Dr Htun Nay Lin, Mattock Lane Health Centre Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Review carried out on 21 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Htun Nay Lin, Mattock Lane Health Centre on 21 November 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

Inspection carried out on 5 July 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Htun Nay Lin, Mattock Lane Health Centre on 5 July 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; however they did not include all areas for example not recording checks on oxygen.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance.
  • Some of the staff had not undertaken essential training relevant to their role; however most staff had completed these training the day following the inspection and the practice sent us evidence to support this.
  • 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.
  • The practice had only identified a low number of patients as carers.
  • 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.
  • 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 practice met with the Patient Participation Group only once a year.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review practice procedures to ensure medical oxygen is regularly checked and recorded and ensure confidentiality agreements are in place for all clinical staff.
  • Review practice procedures to ensure systems are in place to identify when staff training needed to be updated.
  • Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified to ensure information, advice and support can be made available to them.
  • Consider frequent Patient Participation Group (PPG) Meetings and review practice procedures to ensure PPG is patient led.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice