• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: MGS Medical Practice Also known as Low Hill Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Low Hill Medical Practice, 191 First Avenue, Low Hill, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV10 9SX (01902) 728861

Provided and run by:
MGS Medical Practice

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

All Inspections

27 May 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

MGS Medical Practice comprises of three branches, Low Hill Medical Centre, Bradley Health Centre and Ruskin Road Surgery. We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Low Hill Medical Centre, the main branch on 27 May 2015. The other two branches were not inspected as part of this visit. Overall Low Hill Medical Centre is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. The practice was rated as good for providing services for older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected 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, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of ensuring the skill mix of staff was appropriate to meet the needs of patients registered at the service.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said it was not always easy to make an appointment with a named GP, that there was a lack of continuity of care and although urgent appointments were available the same day they found it difficult to access these.
  • 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.

There were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Action the provider should take to improve:

  • Ensure that a suitable mix of staff with appropriate levels of skills and competencies are available to meet the needs of patients registered at the practice.
  • Implement multidisciplinary meetings to discuss the care of patients at the end stage of their life and those with complex health needs.
  • Review the appointment system offered to ensure patients can access the practice, a GP of their choice and appointments in a timely manner.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

25 November 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with seven patients and four members of staff. One patient said, "I have been treated very well here." Some of the patients we spoke with said they were unable to obtain appointments at a time to suit their needs. However, most of the patients we spoke with said they felt the quality of care they received was good.

We saw that patient's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. One patient told us, 'I trust them." We saw that patients experienced care and treatment that met their needs. Patients told us and we saw that care was delivered in a clean environment preventing the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors to the practice.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding (protecting vulnerable adults and children) and were aware of whom to report concerns to. This meant that patients were protected from the risk of abuse.

There were established quality monitoring systems to assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received. There were methods to obtain patient feedback to improve the quality of service delivered.