You are here

Dr Cecil Skelly Good Also known as New North Health Centre

Reports


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Cecil Skelly on 8 July 2021. 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 Dr Cecil Skelly, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 6 September 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Cecil Skelly on 6 September 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 2 August 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

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 carried out on 8 December 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Cecil Skelly (New North Health Centre) on 8 December 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected 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. However, they did not have 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 patients did not always feel involved in their care and decisions about their treatment and were not always happy with the quality of care provided to them 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 we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice