You are here

Summerlee Medical Centre Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Review carried out on 29 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Summerlee Medical Centre on 29 February 2020. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

Inspection carried out on 03/01/2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Summerlee Medical Centre on 03 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

.

We rated the population groups as follows:

Older people - Good

People with long-term conditions – Requires improvement

Families, children and young people - Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students) - Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable - Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We rated the population group people with long-term conditions as requires improvement because:

  • Records of annual clinical reviews of long term conditions in relation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were not always comprehensive.
  • Patients with multiple long-term conditions did not have their needs reviewed in one appointment.

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.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

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

  • Take action so the infection control policy reflects current staff responsibilities.
  • Take action so the temporary staff induction pack clarifies specific information related to clinical safety of patient care.
  • Take action so a clear audit trail is available for the management of information about changes to a patient’s medicines including changes made by other services.
  • Take action so records of annual clinical reviews of long term conditions in relation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are comprehensive and patients that needed reviews for multiple long-term conditions have their needs reviewed in one appointment where possible.
  • Take action so practice performance in relation to average daily quantity of hypnotics prescribed and the detection rate resulting from the two-week cancer referral process are reviewed and acted upon.
  • Develop a patient participation group (PPG).
  • Continue with actions to improve levels of patient satisfaction in relation to access to appointments.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice