Archived: Cheetham Hill Medical Centre

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cheetham Hill Medical Centre on 19 and 27 September 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service provides a cardiology assessment service to patients living in north and central Manchester.

Our key findings were:

• The service had clear systems to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
• A system was in place for reporting, investigating and learning from significant events and incidents.
• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.
• There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety. For example, infection control practices were carried out appropriately and there were regular checks on the environment and on equipment used.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
• Patient comment cards included very positive feedback about the service and patients felt they had been treated with dignity and respect and involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
• Patients were provided with information about their health along with advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
• Systems were in place to protect personal information about patients.
• Staff were appropriately trained and experienced to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Staff had access to all standard operating procedures and policies.
• The service encouraged and acted on feedback from both patients and staff. Patient survey information we reviewed showed that people who used the service had given positive feedback about their experience.

• Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made as a result of complaints and feedback from patients.
• The location of the service provided appropriate facilities for patients, including disabled access.
• There was a clear leadership and staff structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
• The provider had a clear vision to provide a safe and high-quality service.

• There were clinical governance systems and processes in place to ensure the quality of service provision.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice