The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Arthington Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

5 Moor Road, Hunslet, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS10 2JJ (0113) 385 2180

Provided and run by:
Dr Pearline Susan Punnoose

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

13 September 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused desk-top inspection on 13 September 2022. Overall, the practice remains rated as good. The rating for each key question we inspected is:

Caring – good

Responsive – good

At the last inspection on 13 April 2022, the practice was rated as good overall and good for the key questions of safe, effective and well-led. The previous inspection, undertaken on 17 October 2018, responsive was rated as good and caring rated as requires improvement. This was because:

  • Patients’ satisfaction with how cared for they felt was consistently, and in some cases significantly, below local and national averages.

At this inspection, we found that those areas previously rated as being requires improvement had been actioned and addressed by the practice.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Arthington Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a focused inspection looking at the key questions of caring and responsive. This inspection was undertaken as it was identified that all key questions should have been considered at the previous inspection on 13 April 2022.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which did not require us to attend on site. This is known as a desk-top inspection. We undertook the following:

  • Spoke with staff via video conferencing.
  • Requested and reviewed evidence from the provider.
  • Reviewed information from sources external to the provider.
  • Reviewed patient feedback and patient survey results.

Our findings

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 found that:

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.

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

  • Continue to take action to improve patient satisfaction.

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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

13 April 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at The Arthington Medical Centre on 12 and 13 April 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good. The rating for each key question is:

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Well-led – Good

The Caring domain was not inspected as patient experience feedback had improved since the previous inspection so maintains the rating of Good. The practice maintains its rating of Good for Responsive as we only reviewed the part of the key question relating to access.

Why we carried out this inspection

We undertook this inspection at the same time as the Care Quality Commission inspected a range of other health and urgent and emergency care services in West Yorkshire. To understand the experience of 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.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account 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.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video and telephone conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider.
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • Requesting staff to complete a short questionnaire.
  • A short site visit.

Our findings

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

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. Clinical searches and medical records we reviewed showed effective management and monitoring of patients with long-term conditions and those on regular medication. However, we observed abnormal test results were not managed in a timely manner.
  • The practice obtained consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance although the practice policy did not reflect the current procedure the doctors were following with regard to Do Not Attempt CPR.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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

  • Update the Do Not Attempt CPR (DNACPR) policy to reflect the current procedure, ensure this is shared with all staff and an alert is put on the patient record to ensure all staff are aware of it.
  • Improve processes for reviewing and acting on abnormal test results.
  • Address patient feedback with regard to the ability to pre-book an appointment.
  • Continue to improve uptake of cervical cytology screening.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

25/09/2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Arthington Medical Centre on 17 October 2018. The overall rating for the practice was good. However, we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services. The full comprehensive report for that inspection can be found on the Care Quality Commission website, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Arthington Medical Centre.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 25 September 2019, to confirm the practice had made the required improvements in providing caring services. At this inspection we also reviewed the several aspects of care where we told the provider they should improve.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • On the day of inspection patient feedback was positive regarding the care and support offered by the practice. Patients told us they were treated with dignity and respect and they were listened to. The provider had reviewed the outcomes of the 2019 National GP Patient Survey and we saw that three out of the five indicators we reviewed had improved since the 2018 survey. Whilst responses to this survey remained below CCG and national averages, responses to the practice’s own survey undertaken between July and September 2019 were more positive and the response rate was higher, representing 3% of the patient population. The practice had made a number of changes since their last inspection which aimed to improve the patient experience.

In addition:

  • The provider had reviewed and improved the range of vaccinations and immunisations offered to staff, in line with guidelines. There was evidence to support that the immunisation status of staff was recorded and that staff had been appropriately immunised. Occupational health support was also available for all staff.
  • The provider had reviewed how communication with staff could be improved to support staff raising concerns. We saw evidence of discussions at staff meetings and staff told us they were happy in their roles. We were told the new practice management team were communicative, supportive and approachable. One to one appraisals were planned. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy and of where they could access support. A 2019 staff survey confirmed that recent changes had resulted in increased job satisfaction and had contributed to an open and honest culture within the team.
  • The provider had significantly improved the identification of patients who acted in the capacity of a carer. A carers’ champion worked with the team to proactively support this vulnerable group of patients.

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

  • Monitor and continue to work towards improving patient satisfaction at the practice.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care.

17 October 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Arthington Medical Centre on 17 October 2018, as part of our inspection programme.

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based on a combination of what we found when we inspected, information from the provider, patients, public, other organisations and our ongoing monitoring of data about services.

We have rated this practice as good overall.

We concluded that:

  • Patients were protected from avoidable harm and abuse and that legal requirements were met.
  • Patient care and treatment was delivered in line with current best practice guidance.
  • The leadership, governance and culture of the practice promoted the delivery of quality person-centred care.

However, we also found that:

  • Some staff informed us that communication systems within the practice did not always meet their needs. They told us they did not always feel they were supported to raise concerns.
  • It was noted that records were not available for all staff to assure the practice of their occupational health immunisation status.
  • Less than 2% of registered patients had been identified as a carer.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services because:

  • Patients’ satisfaction with how cared for they felt was consistently, and in some cases significantly, below local and national averages. This included a significant proportion of patients surveyed who claimed the healthcare professional they last had an appointment with was good or very good at treating them with care and concern.
  • The provider informed us they were striving hard to improve patient satisfaction overall. However, the impact of this work had not been formally assessed at the time of inspection.

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

    • Review how communications with staff could be improved to support staff raising concerns.
    • Review and improve the process to ensure that the immunisation status, regarding occupational health, of newly recruited staff is recorded.
    • Monitor and work to improve patient satisfaction regarding their experience at the practice.
    • Work to improve the identification of patients who act in the capacity of a carer.

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

    Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice