You are here

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

Reports


Inspection carried out on 16 Sep 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Kings Cross Surgery on 31 May 2017 as part of our inspection programme. Following the inspection we rated the practice as Good overall, however we rated it as requires improvement for providing Caring services. You can read the full report, published on 7 August 2017, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Kings Cross Surgery on our website at: .

On 16 September 2020, we carried out a desk-based review to confirm that the practice had resolved the issues we identified at our previous inspection in May 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

We found the practice is now meeting those requirements and we have amended the rating for this practice accordingly. The practice is now rated Good for the provision of Caring services. We previously rated the practice as Good for providing Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led services.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we reviewed the information sent to us by the provider
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider.

We have rated the practice as Good for providing Caring services because:

  • The practice provided care in a way which kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • It had developed and implemented an App (computer application) to improve patient access.
  • The practice regularly reviewed the results of the national GP patient survey, and ran its own patient survey to measure levels of patient satisfaction.
  • Comments received, about the practice, on the NHS Choices website showed patients were satisfied with the care they received.

When we last inspected, we also found high levels of exception reporting from the practice’s cervical screening programme. At this inspection the practice had made improvements this programme.

  • We saw evidence from the practice’s own system confirming, for eligible patients:

    • An average of 82% of patients underwent screening;

  • The practice operated a walk-in service for all eligible patients to undergo screening when convenient, and appropriate, for them.
  • The practice carried out specific searches to ensure women were being recalled in line with National Screening guidelines;
  • Recalls are carried out regularly, with women who failed to respond receiving text messages reminding them to attend for screening;
  • Staff had attended training carried out by Public Health England to enable them to carry out recalls.
  • The practice had a failsafe system staff followed to ensure patients were not missed from the screening programme;
  • Patients records were checked and appropriately coded to ensure eligible patients were included in the programme;
  • Since 2018 the practice had run Women's Health Events to promote its screening programmes, including cervical screening. The programme had also been attended by representatives from Public Health England and a local charity.
  • It had a large patient population from a group who were reluctant to engage with the programme. Accordingly, twice a year, it invited representatives of the community, and had interpreters available, to explain the importance of undergoing cervical screening.

Inspection carried out on 31 May 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Kings Cross Surgery on 31 May 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.
  • There was a full time male and female Bengali interpreter on the premises at all times.

  • 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 rated the practice lower than the CCG and national averages for several aspects of care.
  • 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 practice used a number of data analysis tools to benchmark the practice against other practices and monitor performance.
  • 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 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:

  • Continue to work to improve patient satisfaction in all areas including consultations with GPs and nurses and access to services.
  • Consider the proactive use of longer appointments to reduce patient waiting times.
  • Continue to work to improve exception reporting rates especially in cervical cytology.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice