The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Leeds Student Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

4 Blenheim Court, Blenheim Walk, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS2 9AE (0113) 295 4488

Provided and run by:
Leeds Student Medical Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Leeds Student Medical Practice 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 Leeds Student Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

27/02/2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We had previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Leeds Student Medical Practice on 11 January 2019. The overall rating for the practice was good, with requires improvement for providing effective services; particularly relating to the population groups of working age people (including those recently retired and students) and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). At that inspection we also found there were areas where the provider should make improvements. These included improving the processes regarding disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks for salaried GPs; improve the support provided to healthcare assistants during their induction period; improve the provision of information for patients whose first language is not English and improve systems to identify patient with specific vulnerability factors or conditions.

The full comprehensive report for that inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Leeds Student Medical Practice on the Care Quality Commission website.

This inspection, carried out on 27 February 2020, was an announced focused inspection to determine whether the practice had made the required improvements in providing effective services. This report covers our findings in relation to those. Overall the practice remains rated as good and the key question of are services effective is now also rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The provider had reviewed and improved the processes to ensure requirements relating to DBS checks were being met for all staff.
  • The provider had reviewed and improved systems to correctly identify patients with specific vulnerability factors or conditions.
  • The provider had reviewed and improved the support provided to healthcare assistants, to ensure that the standards within the Care Certificate were incorporated into their induction process.
  • The provider had reviewed and improved the provision of information available for patients, in line with patients’ first language.
  • The provider had undertaken extensive reviews to improve the coding, recall and review of patients, particularly those with a long-term condition, those who were eligible for cancer screening and children requiring immunisations.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to promote and monitor uptake rates for childhood immunisations.
  • Continue to promote and monitor uptake rates for cervical cancer screening.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

11 January 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Leeds Student Medical Practice on 11 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based on a combination of:

  • What information we found when we inspected
  • Information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services
  • Information from the provider, patients, public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for three of the six population groups. We rated the population groups ‘working age people (including those recently retired and students)’ and ‘people experiencing poor mental health (including those with dementia)’ as requires improvement due to significant variations in some of the Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators. This resulted in the key question of are services effective being rated as requires improvement too. We have not rated the population group ‘older people’ as, due to the vast majority of patients at the practice being between 17 and 34 years of age, we did not have sufficient evidence.

The practice was previously inspected by the Care Quality Commission in May 2016 and rated as outstanding for providing caring, responsive and well-led services. These outstanding areas meant the practice were rated outstanding overall. This was because:

  • Data from the national GP survey showed patients rated the practice higher than others for almost all aspects of care.
  • The practice provided a three bed, day assessment bay for those patients who required a short period of observation following procedures.
  • The practice had developed an in house mental health team, to offer early interventions to patients.

During this inspection we saw the practice were still providing the services identified in the previous report. However; we received mixed reviews regarding the appointment system and we were unable to identify any new improved patient outcomes based on these services.

At this inspection we found:

  • There were clear systems in place to report, record and learn from significant incidents. We saw examples where systems had been improved as a result of events.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us they felt supported by management.
  • There were good methods of communication and staff engagement.
  • The practice had systems and process in place to ensure confidentiality for patients at the reception desk.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had a day care assessment bay, funded by Leeds University, within the practice premises, housing three beds. This was overseen by a healthcare assistant and enabled the practice to assure themselves that any patient requiring further monitoring was cared for.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and improve the processes in place to ensure requirements relating to DBS checks are being met for salaried GPs.
  • Review and improve systems to correctly identify patients with specific vulnerability factors or conditions to ensure that the work undertaken by the practice is accurately reflected, including those with caring responsibilities.
  • Review and improve the support provided to HCAs on appointment by ensuring the standards contained within the Care Certificate are incorporated into their induction process.
  • Review and improve the provision of information to patients in their first language in line with their known patient demographics.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

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

25 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Leeds Student Medical Practice on 25 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as outstanding.

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. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised and incidents were shared with the Leeds West Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Patients 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.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive.
  • 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 and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.
  • The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they met patients’ needs. For example, the University’s pastoral services and the CCG to develop the mental health service.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from patients and the active Patient Reference Group (PRG) using a range of social media which it acted on.
  • The practice had strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements.
  • The practice held daily ‘Tea and Toast’ sessions to support team working, communication and increase morale across the team.

We saw areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice had a day care assessment facility within the building, with three beds which was overseen by a healthcare assistant. This provision enabled the practice to assure themselves that patients were well before they returned home.
  • The practice had developed an in house mental health team, to offer early interventions to patients. The programme focussed on the treatment of mild to moderate anxiety and depression with an emphasis on guided self-help. The practice had developed pathways to identify the most appropriate use of local services. Patients experiencing mild to moderate anxiety and depression or eating disorders were offered appointments with the practice mental health workers. Patient feedback showed the service was rated very highly.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

5 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four patients visiting the practice. They were complimentary about the practice, the staff and the care they received.

Patients said they felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The risks and benefits were explained to them and they were given information appropriate to their needs. One patient told us they were, 'Always given information' about their treatment.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure the safety and welfare of patients. Patients said the new appointments system worked well and they could obtain a convenient appointment with a doctor or nurse.

The practice had considered the guidance in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 Code of Practice on the prevention and control of infections. The Lead Nurse provided leadership for the practice on infection control issues and ensured appropriate standards were maintained.

We spoke with seven members of staff. They talked enthusiastically about the services provided and the care and treatment given to patients. They told us they were well supported by colleagues.

Patients were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. The practice manager spent time each week in the waiting area talking to patients and seeking their views about the services provided. The practice had established a Patient Reference Group and used social media (Facebook) to receive feedback on the services provided.