• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Kings Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

c/o Kings Medical Centre, King Edward Street, Normanton, West Yorkshire, WF6 2AZ (01924) 898784

Provided and run by:
Novus Health Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

12 May 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. The service had been previously inspected in February 2014 but did not receive a rating at that time.

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 Kings Medical Centre as part of our inspection programme.

The provider delivers several specialist services which include:

  • Carpal Tunnel Treatment and Surgery Service
  • Community Dermatology Service
  • Direct Access Adult Hearing Loss Service
  • Community Physiotherapy Service

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, in respect of some, but not all of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of service, and these are set out in Schedule 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We were only able to evaluate the services which come into the scope of regulatory requirements with the CQC and therefore only inspected services in relation to carpal tunnel treatment and surgery, the community dermatology Service, and some elements of the adult hearing loss service which included an in-house wax management service which was being piloted. Services we did not inspect included audiology, such as the fitting of hearing aids and devices, and physiotherapy services as these fell outside the scope of CQC registration.

How we inspected this service

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, considering the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

During our inspection we:

• Looked at the systems in place relating to safety and governance of the service.

• Viewed key policies and procedures.

• Reviewed patient records.

• Interviewed the provider both by telephone and face to face.

• Spoke with staff and received written submissions from them.

• Spoke with patients who used the service.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we asked the following questions:

  • Is it safe?
  • Is it effective?
  • Is it caring?
  • Is it responsive?
  • Is it well-led?

These questions formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Our key findings were:

  • The service provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There were systems in place to review and investigate events and incidents when things went wrong or did not meet the required standards. Lessons learned were shared and the provider identified themes and took action to improve quality and safety.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. Treatment was delivered in a timely manner.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The service had adjusted how it delivered care and treatment to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the service was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care. There were effective performance management and governance processes in place, and we saw that action had been taken to improve performance and tackle areas which had not met service internal standards when these were identified.
  • Patient satisfaction with services provided was high.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Maintain records to demonstrate that staff are vaccinated in line with Public Health England guidance.
  • Fully re-establish appraisal processes across all staff groups.
  • Develop a standard two-cycle approach to clinical and non-clinical audit activity.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

8 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We were able to speak with two people who had attended for surgical procedure on the day, both of whom found the overall service highly efficient. Evidence from satisfaction questionnaires also confirmed a generally high opinion of the service.

People received care, treatment and support that met their needs and we saw evidence that they received safe and appropriate care. The provider placed strong emphasis on the consent process and in so doing, carried out a comprehensive pre-assessment routine.

We saw procedures were in place for the prevention, detection and control of infection and the maintenance of appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene.

We inspected the clinical area and found it was suitable for the delivery of an invasive procedure. There was a robust system in place for the sterilisation of surgical instruments.

People were being cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who were receiving strong clinical and managerial support, together with regular training.

We saw evidence of internal audit and review for both procedures performed at the clinic. These were producing high levels of surgical outcomes, supported by action plans where further work was required.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

11 February 2013

During a routine inspection

The surgeon was not operating on the day that the inspection was carried out. Therefore, we were unable to speak with people who had used the service as they were not available at the time. However, patient satisfaction questionnaires reviewed at the inspection showed that satisfaction with the service being provided was high.

People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. We saw evidence that people were treated with respect and in a way that upheld their dignity.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We saw evidence that people received safe and appropriate care that met their needs.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Processes were in place to ensure staff were aware of safeguarding procedures, through a program of training

People were cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. The information reviewed at inspection showed that good practice was followed when recruiting staff.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.