You are here

Nova Scotia Medical Centre Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Review carried out on 21 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Nova Scotia Medical Centre on 21 December 2019. 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 3 January 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nova Scotia Medical Centre on 3 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, public, other organisations.

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

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, which were delivered in line with current best practice guidance.
  • Staff treated patients with kindness and respect, involving them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients’ comments were positive about practice staff and the care they received.
  • The practice organised and delivered services responsively and effectively. They addressed any challenges they encountered and engaged patients and staff in any changes to service delivery.
  • The leadership, governance and culture of the practice promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We saw the following areas of outstanding practice:

  • The GP had developed a template to support GP referrals to secondary care. The template populated information direct from a patient’s record into a letter which could be emailed directly to the appropriate consultant. Information incorporated included a summary of the issue, any active problems, current and repeat medication and details of any allergies the patient may have. We were informed that this template was being used citywide.
  • The GP had developed a search tool used to identify vulnerable young adults. The tool identified younger patients who may not have ordinarily been identified using conventional tools. This allowed staff to be aware of any ‘vulnerable’ issues, such as being reliant on a family member to take them out.

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

  • Improve the recording of the immunisation status of staff with regards to occupational health vaccinations they had received.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPG FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice