• Doctor
  • GP practice

Kensington Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

155-157 Edge Lane, Liverpool, Merseyside, L7 2PT (0151) 295 8770

Provided and run by:
Brownlow Health

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

10 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced assessment of Kensington Health Centre on 10 November 2023. The assessment focused on the responsive key question.

Following our previous inspection on 25 February 2019 the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions. The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Kensington Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

The practice continues to be rated as good overall and the responsive key question continues to be rated as good as a result of the findings of this focused assessment.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive – Good

Well-led – Good

Why we carried out this review

We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers.

We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know colleagues are doing this while demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. In this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. These assessments of the responsive key question include looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

How we carried out the assessment

This assessment was carried out remotely. It did not include a site visit.

The process included:

  • Conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing.
  • Reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • Reviewing data we hold about the service
  • Seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders

Our findings

We based our judgement of the responsive key question on a combination of:

  • what we found when we met with the provider
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • During the assessment process, the provider highlighted the work they are doing to maintain and improve the responsiveness of the service for their patient population.
  • The provider organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. They worked proactively and alongside other agencies to meet the needs of the patients and improve their experiences of care and treatment.
  • People were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Complaints were listened to, managed appropriately and used to improve the quality of care.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

15 January 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Kensington Health Centre on 15 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice had clear systems to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse. There were adequate systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety.
  • The practice had a good track record on safety. There were comprehensive risk assessments in relation to safety issues. The practice monitored and reviewed safety using information from a range of sources. The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong.
  • Systems were in place to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice.
  • The practice had a comprehensive programme of quality improvement activity and routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided. Where appropriate, clinicians took part in local and national improvement initiatives.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. Staff worked together and with other health and social care professionals to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients told us that staff treated patients with kindness, respect and compassion. The practice respected patients’ privacy and dignity.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. They took account of the needs of its population and tailored services in response to those needs. Patients could access care and treatment from the practice within an acceptable timescale for their needs.
  • The practice took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.
  • Leaders were knowledgeable about issues and priorities relating to the quality and future of services. They understood the challenges and were addressing them. Leaders at all levels were visible and approachable. They worked closely with staff and others to make sure they prioritised compassionate and inclusive leadership.
  • There was a clear vision and set of values. The practice had a realistic strategy and supporting business plans to achieve priorities.
  • Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued. They were proud to work in the practice.
  • There was an effective, process to identify, understand, monitor and address current and future risks including risks to patient safety.
  • Quality and operational information was used to ensure and improve performance. Performance information was combined with the views of patients.
  • There was evidence of systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation.

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

  • Improve the identification of carers to enable this group of patients to access the care and support they need.
  • Develop a monitoring system for the safe use of sharps disposal bins.
  • Review the arrangements for the storage of confidential patient information.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice