We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bartholomew Medical Group on 6 July 2023. 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 Bartholomew Medical Group, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this practice on 1 March 2016. A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the following legal requirements set out in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008:
Regulation 19 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Fit and proper persons employed Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014:
Fit and proper persons employed
How the regulation was not being met:
Recruitment arrangements did not include all necessary employment checks for all staff.
Regulation 19(3)(a) schedule 3
This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 19 January 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 1 March 2016. This report covers our findings in relation only to those requirements.
The full comprehensive report on the Month Year inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bartholomew Medical Group on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Overall the practice is rated as good.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bartholomew Medical Group on 29 February and 1 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good. Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. Weekly audits of a system read code ensured smooth passage of referral for patients, as a ‘belt and braces’ approach.
Systems were in place to assess risks to patients however they were not always followed. Full recruitment checks had not been undertaken for staff prior to employment.
We saw one area of outstanding practice:
The practice regularly used a dementia assessment tool to assess changes in patients at risk of dementia. The strengths of the assessment tool included: short administration and scoring time (8–10 minutes); assessment of multiple cognitive areas sensitive to dementia, high sensitivity in detecting early Alzheimer’s disease, and a large range of scores in the mild impairment range, allowing detection of subtle changes over time. This had reduced onward referral rates to memory clinics by more than 50 per cent.
The area where the provider must make improvements are:
Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary employment checks for all staff.
The area where the provider should make improvements are:
Ensure the Practice Manager has access to key documents in the absence of the Business Manager.
Chief Inspector of General Practice