You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Review carried out on 3 March 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Birkby Health Centre on 3 March 2020. 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 21 March 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. The previous inspection was on 8 April 2016 when the practice was rated as good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students) – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Birkby Health Centre, 37 Norwood Road, Birkby, Huddersfield, HD2 2YD on 21 March 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes. When things went wrong, reviews and investigations were thorough and lessons learned were communicated throughout the practice to support improvement.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • We saw that staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and told us that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • The practice had shown a reduction in antibiotic prescribing.
  • The practice gave us examples of when they had ‘gone the extra mile’ for patients by, for example, the GPs telephoned the patients at weekends to monitor their health and reassure patients of treatment received.
  • The practice developed a Vitamin D health leaflet which the CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) was using district wide.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 8 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Birkby Health Centre on 8 April 2016. This was to check that the new provider for the practice had taken sufficient action to address a number of significant shortfalls we had identified during our previous inspection in October 2015. Following the inspection in October 2015, the practice was rated as inadequate for providing safe, effective and well-led services; and as requires improvement for caring and responsive services. Overall it was rated as inadequate and we placed the practice into special measures. The previous provider has cancelled his registration and Dr Sobia Khaliq has been registered as the new provider for Birkby Health Centre since January 2016.

During this latest inspection, we found that the practice had made significant progress in addressing concerns that had been identified in October 2015. For example, shortfalls in staff training and recruitment checks had been addressed, infection control procedures and the management of temperature sensitive vaccines was more effectively managed and clinical audits were being used to drive improvements in patient care. A new practice manager and nurse had been appointed and Dr Khaliq had sought external support and advice to improve services. 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.
  • Policies and procedures that had been previously lacking or overdue for review had been drafted and were being introduced across the practice.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. A comprehensive infection control audit by a specialist external provider had concluded that the practice managed a safe environment for patients and staff.
  • Recruitment checks on staff and insurance arrangements for clinicians were in line with requirements.
  • 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.
  • Clinical audits were used to improve patient care and outcomes.
  • The appointment system had been overhauled and patients were able to access urgent care with less delay and greater flexibility.
  • 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 staff team had been enhanced by the recruitment of regular long-term locums and an experienced practice nurse.
  • The practice had reenergised the patient reference group and 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.

In addition the provider should:

  • Ensure that all staff are aware of the practice’s safeguarding policy and procedures.

  • Ensure that there is clear management responsibility for infection prevention and control.

  • Continue to develop a strategic approach to identify carers and their support needs.

  • Continue to address issues reflected in the GP patient survey through the monitoring of both quality services and patient satisfaction.

I confirm that this practice has improved sufficiently to be rated ‘Good’ overall and as a result can be removed from “special measures”. This recognises the significant improvements made by the practice and the quality of care that was being provided to patients.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice