The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Urgent care service or mobile doctor

Sheffield City GP Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Rockingham House, 75 Broad Lane, Sheffield, S1 3PB (0114) 241 2700

Provided and run by:
One Medicare Ltd

All Inspections

19 December 2023

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 23 April 2023 – Inadequate)

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 Sheffield City GP Health Centre to follow up on areas that were found to be in breach of regulation at the previous inspection in April 2023. At the inspection in December 2023 we rated the practice good overall and for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led service. We found significant improvements had been made to ensure that care and treatment was provided in a safe way to patients and the provider had established effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements that have been made to the quality of care provided by this service.

At this inspection we found:

  • The service had implemented a new management structure and had proactively addressed breaches in regulation found at the inspection in April 2023. This had led to improved and appropriate systems and processes including oversight, governance, improved culture and monitoring of safe systems.
  • There were systems in place to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from abuse and staff knew how to identify and report safeguarding concerns.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with dignity and respect.
  • Waiting times to be seen, referred or discharged had improved with the provider meeting the key performance indicators set out by the commissioners.
  • Staff feedback was greatly improved with staff saying they had seen a lot of positive changes since the last inspection and staff morale had also improved. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and that these were listened to.
  • Complaints were handled appropriately and incidents and complaints were used to drive improvement.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. The provider had a comprehensive training and development plan in place and had introduced formal clinical supervision for staff.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider inviting regular locum staff to the formal clinical supervision sessions.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

25 April 2023

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Inadequate overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Inadequate

Are services effective? – Inadequate

Are services caring? – Requires Improvement

Are services responsive? – Requires Improvement

Are services well-led? – Inadequate

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at Sheffield City GP Health Centre, also known to patients as the Sheffield Walk-In Centre, in response to concerns we received.

At this inspection we found:

  • Systems and processes including oversight, governance and monitoring of safe systems were inadequate.
  • There were systems in place to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from abuse and staff knew how to identify and report safeguarding concerns.
  • Patients mostly received effective care and treatment. However, there were insufficient staff to deal with the full spectrum of possible patient presenting conditions at all times and clinical staff did not receive any formal clinical supervision support.
  • Patient feedback was mixed, with some patients being happy with the way they were treated by staff and others reporting staff did not treat them with kindness or respect.
  • Patients reported long waits to access care. The service was not meeting the key performance indicators specified by its commissioners consistently between October 2022 and February 2023. They had met the targets in March 2023.
  • Staff feedback was mixed, with some staff stating they felt supported by management and able to raise concerns whilst others reported closed cultures where they did not feel they could escalate their concerns through the provider’s procedures.

We found breaches of regulation. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Provide a complaints leaflet in reception which is readily available for patients and record all complaints, including verbal complaints.
  • Review ways to improve confidentiality at the reception desk when supporting patients who are unable to complete the arrival form themselves.
  • Review the waiting area to ensure sufficient seating availability for patients.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within 6 months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within 6 months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further 6 months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

7 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sheffield City GP Health Centre on 18/  and 25 January 2017. The overall rating for the practice was good with requires improvement for being the domain of well led. The full comprehensive report on the 18/ and 25 January 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sheffield City GP Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 7 November 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 18/  and 25 January 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The provider had reviewed their governance systems and put processes in place to monitor and ensure compliance with the regulations.  For example; performance and information meetings were held quarterly to discuss clinical governance and safeguarding issues.
  • The provider had reviewed their initial form and checklist which patients used when booking in or used the telephone interpretation service.  We noted that the form was available in large print and in numerous languages.
  • We saw a matrix which identified that the provider had a record of nurses advance nurse practitioner ’ competencies to assess see and treat children.
  • The provider had a Duty of Candour policy and we saw written reference to this within their policies.
  • We were told that significant event forms were available to all staff however there had not been any reported adult safeguarding concerns since our last inspection.
  • We saw evidence of systems and processes which identified that fire safety procedures were being dealt with proactively and were kept under regular review.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

18 and 25 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sheffield City GP Health Centre on the 18 and 25 January 2017. Overall, the service is rated as good. Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • The service had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, and managers told us all staff, including locums, had access to policies and procedures on the providers group intranet. However we found examples where staff had not always followed the guidelines. For example, referring to the local child services team when referring to other agencies such as the police.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses with the exception of a significant event form was not always completed when reporting adult safeguarding concerns as per the adult safeguarding policy
  • There was a system in place for learning from significant events.
  • Some lessons were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the service.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and managed, with the exception of those relating to fire safety. A fire risk assessment was completed two days prior to our inspection and action was taken by the provider following the risk assessment to address the issues. However these issues should have been dealt with more proactively and been under regular review.
  • Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Audits and reviews demonstrated quality improvement.
  • Patients said staff treated with them with respect.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The service worked proactively with other organisations and providers to develop services that supported alternatives to hospital admission where appropriate and improved the patient experience.
  • There was a leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • The provider must ensure the governance systems and processes are implemented and monitored to ensure compliance with the regulations.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • The provider should review the initial form and checklist patients complete so that it is available in large print and other languages for use when using the telephone interpretation service. The provider should keep a record of nurses’ competencies to see and treat children.

  • The provider should have written reference to the Duty of Candour within their policies.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

27 November and 6 December 2013

During a routine inspection

Patients spoken with were asked about their experiences when visiting the GP practice and the walk-in centre. Patients told us that their privacy and dignity was respected. Patients told us that they were involved in decisions relating to their treatment and care.

Patients visiting the GP practice made positive comments about the staff and how they had been treated. Their comments included: 'it's first class', 'it is good here, I've been here two years and can't complain at all', 'the nurses are very good', 'they're (the staff) all very nice' and 'I've never seen the same GP more than once, but they're all good".

Patients visiting the NHS walk-in service were satisfied with the care, support and advice they had received. Their comments included: 'the doctor was really kind last time I came" and 'I came here last year when my asthma was bad, they (the staff) were brilliant'.

Staff spoken with were clear about what their role and responsibilities were and what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse.

We found that appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene had been maintained.

The provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.