You are here

Dr Cecil Skelly Good Also known as New North Health Centre

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Cecil Skelly on 8 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. The full comprehensive report on the 8 December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Cecil Skelly on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based inspection carried out on 2 August 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 8 December 2016. 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:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety and had developed a business continuity plan.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed an improvement and patients felt more involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients surveyed said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP.
  • There was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider could make improvements.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Although the results are improving the practice should continue to assess, monitor and improve the quality of care provided in view of the low patient survey results.

At our previous inspection on 8 December 2016, we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services as the practice had done nothing to address the low patient survey results. At this inspection we found that the patient survey scores had improved and the practice had put in processes to drive this improvement. Consequently, the practice is now rated as good for providing caring services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

Effective

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

Caring

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • The practice had identified 23 patients as carers (1% of the practice list).

  • Data from the 2017 national GP patient survey showed improvement although patients rated the practice lower than others for some aspects of care. For example;

  • 91% (previously 82%) had confidence and trust in the last GP they saw or spoke to compared to the CCG and national average of 95%.

  • 98% (previously 84%) had confidence and trust in the last nurse they saw or spoke to compared to the CCG average of 95% and the national average of 97%.

  • Survey information we reviewed showed that patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

  • Information for patients about the services available was accessible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

The provider had resolved the concerns for caring services identified at our inspection on 8 December 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect this.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

The provider had resolved the concerns for caring services identified at our inspection on 8 December 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect this.

Older people

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

The provider had resolved the concerns for caring services identified at our inspection on 8 December 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect this.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

The provider had resolved the concerns for caring services identified at our inspection on 8 December 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect this.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

The provider had resolved the concerns for caring services identified at our inspection on 8 December 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect this.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 30 August 2017

The provider had resolved the concerns for caring services identified at our inspection on 8 December 2016 which applied to everyone using this practice, including this population group. The population group ratings have been updated to reflect this.