The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Crankhall Lane Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

156 Crankhall Lane, Friar Park, Wednesbury, West Midlands, WS10 0EB (0121) 531 4704

Provided and run by:
Crankhall Lane Medical Centre

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

All Inspections

7 November 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Crankhall Lane Medical Centre on 7 November 2018 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the

legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations we identified in our previous inspection in October 2017 where breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 were identified. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection on 18 October 2017; by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Crankhall Medical Centre on our website at . This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection. Our inspection team was led by a CQC inspector and included a GP specialist advisor.

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.

I have rated this practice as good overall.


This means that:

  • People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse and legal requirements were met.
  • Patients had good outcomes because they received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Patients were supported, treated with dignity and respect and were involved as partners in their care.
  • Data from the 2017/18 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed patient outcomes for diabetes had improved and were in line with local and national averages.
  • The practice continued to be below the national average for cervical screening, but had systems in place to encourage patients to attend screening.
  • The practice had reviewed the 2018 national patient survey and had discussed this with the patient participation group, that had started to meet again since the previous inspection.
  • Following our previous inspection, the practice had reviewed the supervision of clinical staff to ensure they had the appropriate support in the management of patients with long term conditions.
  • People’s needs were met by the way in which services were organised and delivered.
  • The leadership, governance and culture of the practice promoted the delivery of high quality person-centred care, this included a review of the practice business plan to review the vision and values and drive forward the changes the practice had recently implemented.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

18 October 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 Crankhall Lane Medical Centre on 28 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Rajiv Chitre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced follow up comprehensive inspection carried out on 18 October 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 28 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to the improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now 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 improved its systems and processes to minimise risks to patient safety. For example, risk assessments for Legionella and fire were in place. Emergency medicines were available in the event of an emergency.
  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed patient outcomes were in line with or slightly lower than local and national averages in some areas such as diabetes and cervical cytology.
  • There was evidence that 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 felt they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. However, the patient satisfaction scores relating to GP consultations were slightly below the local and national averages.
  • 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.
  • One of the GP partners had been away on long term leave. The other partner had returned from maternity leave and was currently on a phased return. The regular sessional GPs took on lead roles and staff were positive about the leadership structure and their contribution and role in the practice.
  • The practice was able to demonstrate a governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. However, it needed to be strengthened to improve management of patients with diabetes and to improve achievement for cervical screening.
  • There was evidence that the practice had sought feedback and implemented changes to improve.
  • The practice was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure systems or processes are operated effectively to enable improvement to the quality of care in areas such as QOF and cervical cytology.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Consider areas for improvement as identified in the national GP patient survey. For example, in relation to GP consultations.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

28 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Crankhall Lane Medical Practice on 28 November 2016. Overall, the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. However, we found that following the investigation of a significant event in 2016 the practice did not fully implement improvements to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.
  • Although risks to patients who used services were assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe. For example, risk assessments for Legionella, not updating fire risk assessments annually, medicine management and medicines used in the event of an emergency.
  • There were systems in place for the safe recruitment of staff.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Most patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a 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 the 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 areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure emergency medicines for use in the event of meningitis or seizure are available or document the practice rationale and risk assessment for its lack of availability.
  • Ensure all patients on high risk medicines have had their regular blood monitoring completed and pathology results seen by the prescribing GP prior to the reissue of prescriptions.
  • Introduce a system which follows NHS Protect Security of prescription forms guidance.
  • Document the process to demonstrate how the practice implements and shares National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) best practice guidance and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
  • Update the practice fire risk assessment.
  • Ensure data sheets are available for the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) products used within the practice.
  • Complete a Legionella risk assessment.
  • Ensure follow up activity is completed fully for all significant events.
  • Implement formal governance arrangements including systems for assessing and monitoring risks and the quality of the service provision.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

19 June 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection in December 2013 we found that staff had not received updated training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and safeguarding vulnerable adults to enable them to respond with the latest guidelines. We saw that risk assessments were not in place to justify why some staff did not require a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults and children. We found that the provider did not have a robust system in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. At the time of the inspection we judged that this had a minor impact on patients. We set compliance actions and told the provider to improve.

The purpose of this inspection was to see if improvements had been made since our last inspection in December 2013. We gave the provider short notice so that any disruption to people's care and treatment was minimised. During our inspection we spoke with six patients. We also spoke with four members of staff, this included the registered manager who was also a GP and a partner at the practice and the practice manager. We found that the provider had made all of the necessary improvements.

All of the patients who we spoke with were happy with the standard of care and treatment that they received at the practice. One patient told us, "The staff are all very nice and the GP listens to what I have to say". We saw that staff had received training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and safeguarding vulnerable adults to enable them to respond with the latest guidance.

All new staff employed at the practice were required to have a DBS check or a risk assessment in place so that they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults and children.

The provider had improved the system in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. One person said, "The practice is excellent".

19 December 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection we spoke with a reception staff, the practice nurse, the practice manager and the lead GP (provider). We also spoke with five patients about their experience. One patient said: 'Super management and staff here'. Another patient said: 'Reception staff very good and helpful.' All the patients we spoke with were positive about the staff at the practice and said they were respected.

Most patients felt they were involved in their care because the GP had taken time to explain things to them. However, we found that staff did not have updated training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Appropriate guidance was available for staff to follow if abuse was suspected. However, some staff had not received training in safeguarding including the GP lead.

Staff we spoke with told us they were supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard.

The provider did not have a robust system in place for monitoring the quality of service provision.