• Doctor
  • Urgent care service or mobile doctor

Loughborough Urgent Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Hospital Way, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 5JY (01509) 568800

Provided and run by:
DHU Health Care C.I.C.

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

5 April 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced, focused inspection of Loughborough Urgent Care Centre on 5 April 2022. We undertook this inspection at the same time as CQC inspected a range of urgent and emergency care services in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. To understand the experience of GP Providers and people who use GP services, we asked a range of questions in relation to urgent and emergency care. The responses we received have been used to inform and support system wide feedback.

A summary of CQC findings on urgent and emergency care services in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

Urgent and emergency care services across England have been and continue to be under sustained pressure. In response, CQC is undertaking a series of coordinated inspections, monitoring calls and analysis of data to identify how services in a local area work together to ensure patients receive safe, effective and timely care. We have summarised our findings for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland below:

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

Provision of urgent and emergency care in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland was supported by services, stakeholders, commissioners and the local authority.

We spoke with staff in services across primary care, integrated urgent care, acute care, mental health services, ambulance services and adult social care. Staff had worked very hard under sustained pressure across health and social care services.

People reported difficulties when trying to see or speak to their GP. Some GP practices had invested in new technology to improve telephone access. Staff working in GP practices signposted patients to extended and out of hours services to prevent people attending emergency department whenever possible.

Staff working in urgent care reported an increase in demand and an increase in acuity of patients presenting to their services. Some staff reported frustrations in relation to urgent care pathways; staff working in advanced clinical practice were not always empowered to make referrals into alternative pathways.

Staff working in urgent care services reported challenges due to the volume of pilots focused on admissions avoidance running across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Many pilots ran for relatively short periods of time and were often impacted by staffing issues. This made it difficult to maintain oversight of pathways available to avoid acute services. However, some pilots had proved successful and prevented ambulance responses and hospital admissions.

Staff working across urgent and emergency care services raised concerns about their skills set. Some ambulance staff feared the shift from dealing with multiple emergencies to providing longer term care for one patient in a shift, in combination with having less time for training, impacted on their competency. Some staff in urgent care services felt they needed additional training to meet the needs of patients presenting with higher acuity.

Patients seeking advice from NHS111 in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland experienced some delays getting through to the service, when compared against national targets. However, at the time of our inspection, performance was better than England averages for key indicators including the percentage of calls answered within 60 seconds, and call abandonment rates. Staffing continued to be a challenge across NHS111, however recruitment was on-going.

Out of hours care had been challenging throughout the pandemic as staff were redeployed to other key services, this had particularly impacted on home visiting services.

The emergency department serving Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is within a large, city centre hospital. and poor patient flow across health and social care has further increased the significant pressure on the emergency department. This pressure has resulted in long delays in care and treatment. Long delays in ambulance handovers have, in turn, resulted in a high number of hours lost to the ambulance service whilst their crews wait outside hospital. This causes further delays in responding to 999 calls to patients in the community with serious conditions.

Ambulance crews reported an increase in the volume of patients calling 999 who told them they had been unable to see their GP and crews often signposted patients back into primary care.

We found psychiatric liaison services at the city centre hospital were well run and designed to meet people’s needs. Staff demonstrated effective partnership working with a person-centred approach and good use of alternative pathways to avoid admission into acute or social care services.

We found that staff working across specialisms in acute services did not always provide sufficient in-reach into the emergency department to improve patient flow and the care received. This was particularly apparent at night. Beds were not allocated to patients until they had been accepted by specialists, this meant some patients spent additional time waiting in ED. During our inspection, between 45 and 60 beds were needed for new patients waiting in ED. Some patient transfers to other hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland stopped at 8pm, this restricted patient flow out of the city centre hospital.

Some staff reported frustrations with escalation processes across health and social care in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. At times when the city centre hospital and the ambulance service was under significant pressure, staff felt there was a lack of diverts available to other sites or services and that system partners were slow to respond. There was a rapid ambulance handover process when services were in escalation; however, staff reported these were not effective.

There was a high number of patients in hospital who were medically fit for discharge but remained in acute services. System stakeholders worked together to consider discharge pathways; however, at the time of our inspections the number of patients awaiting discharge remained very high. Delays were still commonplace and capacity in community and social care services impacted on the ability of staff to safely discharge patients. Communication about discharge and discharge processes were impacting on the quality of transfers of care to social care services.

People living in social care setting experienced long delays, particularly when accessing 999 services. Although advice was provided, this had resulted in significant waits and poor outcome, especially for people who had fallen and remained on the floor. Staff working in social care services told us they had limited access to support and advice and relied on GPs, 111 or 999.

System wide collaboration, accountability and risk sharing needs to improve to alleviate pressure on key services in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

At this inspection we found:

  • The service had good systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the service learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the service it provided.
  • The provider was committed to developing the staff team and had introduced a dedicated on-site trainer at the service. Competency framework booklets had been developed for staff working in or working towards advanced roles.
  • Although systems were in place for planning and monitoring the number and mix of staff needed, planned rotas were not always filled.
  • The service had developed defined pathways for treatment of patients to provide consistency of care and reduce the burden on other organisations in the system.
  • Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients were usually able to access advice and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Take action to address the recommendations in the infection prevention and control audit.
  • Take action to improve staffing levels and met the requirements of the planned rotas.
  • Discuss and agree an appropriate timescale for replacing privacy curtains in consultation rooms with the contracted domestic team.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

20 December 2018 and 31 January 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is 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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Loughborough Urgent Care Centre on 20 December 2018 in response to concerns. We also revisited to gather patient feedback and comments on the 31 January 2019. We found the service was meeting legal requirements.

At this inspection we found:

  • There was overarching management of risk within the service which was overseen by the provider to board level in addition to the local management and governance in the centre.
  • There were good systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the service learned from them and improved their processes.
  • Staff involved people in their care and treatment and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Auditing of patient records and the prescribing of clinicians was conducted to ensure care was delivered in line with evidence-based guidelines. Any areas of poor practice were challenged, and support offered to improve staff understanding.
  • When the service was taken over by the provider there was a heavy reliance on agency clinicians. This was seen as a risk and the increase in salaried staff prioritised for the sustainability of the service and the continuity of care to patients.
  • There was a strong emphasis on the performance of the centre and the need for improvement in the patient experience. This was monitored locally and at provider level.
  • There was a supportive management team in the centre and they were able to make changes and develop the service calling on the additional expertise and resources of the provider when required.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • The process for ensuring the fridge temperatures were monitored daily was not always adhered to. Although there was a policy in place, the centre had not ensured staff checking the temperatures were trained and that it was completed daily. Although a monthly review of the data loggers revealed the medicines were stored safely the daily check would not have alerted staff to an issue as it was conducted incorrectly.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care