• Doctor
  • GP practice

Swanscombe Health Centre

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Southfleet Road, Swanscombe, Kent, DA10 0BF (01322) 427447

Provided and run by:
Swanscombe Health Centre

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

22,23 and 28 February 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Swanscombe Health Centre on 22 and 23 February 2022 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. The overall rating for the practice was Requires Improvement.

We undertook this inspection at the same time as CQC inspected a range of urgent and emergency care services in Kent and Medway. To understand the experience of GP 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 in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using the telephone / video conferencing.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based 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.

Our findings:

This practice is rated as Requires Improvement overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires Improvement

Are services effective? – Requires Improvement

Are services caring? - Good

Are services responsive? – Requires Improvement

Are services well-led? – Requires Improvement

We rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing safe services because:

  • All staff had not received safeguarding training to appropriate levels for their role.
  • The practice’s computer system did not alert staff of all family and other household members of children that were on the risk register.
  • Staff vaccination was not always maintained in line with current Public Health England guidance.
  • Improvements to fire safety as well as infection prevention and control were required.
  • Risks to patients, staff and visitors were not always assessed, monitored or managed effectively.
  • The arrangements for managing medicines did not always keep patients safe.
  • Significant events were not always reported in a timely manner and learning from them was not always shared with relevant staff.
  • Systems for managing safety alerts were not always effective.

We rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing effective services because:

  • Patients’ needs were not always assessed, and care as well as treatment were not always delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance.
  • Patients with long-term conditions were not always receiving relevant reviews that included all elements necessary in line with current best practice guidance and not all patient reviews that we looked at were followed up where necessary in a timely manner.
  • The practice did not have an effective programme of quality improvement activity that routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided.
  • Performance relating to child immunisations and cervical screening required improvement.
  • All staff were not up to date with essential training.
  • Staff were not always consistent and proactive in helping patients to live healthier lives.

We rated the practice as Good for providing caring services because:

  • Staff treated patients with kindness, respect and compassion.
  • Staff helped patients to be involved in decisions about care and treatment.
  • The practice respected patients’ privacy and dignity.

We rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing responsive services because:

  • The practice organised and delivered services but these did not always meet patients’ needs.
  • Not all facilities and premises were appropriate for services being delivered and complaint with The Equality Act 2010.
  • Learning from complaints was not shared with relevant staff.

We rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing well-led services because:

  • There was compassionate leadership at all levels. However, leaders were not aware of all required improvements to quality, safety and performance.
  • Improvements were required to the processes and systems that supported good governance and management.
  • The provider’s registration with the Care Quality Commission required updating.
  • The practice’s processes for managing risks, issues and performance were not always effective.
  • Processes to manage current and future performance were not sufficiently effective. Improvements to care and treatment were required for some types of patient reviews as well as subsequent follow-up activities.
  • Clinical audit activity did not demonstrate quality improvement.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure all premises and equipment used by the service provider is fit for use.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal necessary to enable them to carry out their duties.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider displaying notices advising patients that chaperones are available if required at all branch surgeries.
  • Consider recording that date that unwanted or unused controlled drugs are returned to the dispensary at Bean Village branch surgery.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

5 April 2016

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 Swanscombe Health Centre on 7 July 2015. Breaches of the legal requirements were found. Following the comprehensive inspection, the practice wrote to us to tell us what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

We undertook this focussed inspection on 5 April 2016, to check that the practice had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Swanscombe Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

7 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Swanscombe Health Centre on 7 July 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, reviewed and addressed.
  • Most risks to patients were assessed and well managed. However, the practice had not always responded to national patient safety alerts and high risk medicines were not always prescribed safely.
  • Patient’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation.
  • Staff had received training appropriate to their roles.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Information to help patients understand the services available was easy to understand. Staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained confidentiality.
  • Patients said they experienced few difficulties when making appointments and urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • There was a leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice took into account the views of patients and those close to them as well as engaging with staff when planning and delivering services.

However, there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider must;

  • Review the system to monitor and keep blank prescription forms safe.
  • Review the process for prescribing high risk medicines.

The provider should;

  • Revise the system of response to national patient safety alerts to ensure that all alerts appropriate to the practice are acted upon.
  • Revise governance processes and ensure that all documents used to govern activity are up to date and contain relevant information details.
  • Revise the system of legionella risk assessment and management to include the Greehithe branch premises and ensure action is planned and implemented where necessary.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

19 August 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

Patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patient's safety and welfare. There were inadequate arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

Patient's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

Patients were not always cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider did not have an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received. The provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of patients and others.

The provider did not have an effective system in place for dealing with complaints. The provider had failed to ensure patients and people who used the services were aware of how to make a complaint. The provider was not able to evidence that they were following the guidance set out in their own complaints policy.