You are here

Budshead Medical Practice Good

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Budshead Medical Practice on 9 September 2021. 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 Budshead Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 15 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Budshead Medical Practice on 15 January 2020. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating January 2016– Good)

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Budshead Medical Centre on 13 November 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • Results of the July 2018 national GP patient survey showed the practice had performed better than CCG and national averages for example, patients satisfied with the type of appointment (or appointments) they were offered was 93% compared to the national average of 74%.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • The practice were taking part in a research programme to look at a holistic approach for those patients with severe and enduring mental health issues and were in the process of employing a mental health worker.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

The practice understood the needs of its population and tailored services in response to those needs. For example

  • The practice were involved in a project that involved seeing any patients with a newly diagnosed Long Term Conditions, that had been diagnosed within the past 12 months. These patients were offered coaching sessions to help them physically and psychologically with their illness. Patients were also given the opportunity to become part of the Time Bank project that would help offset any isolation or loneliness.
  • The practice had been key players in the development of offices and a new social hub in the area as it brought local support services to the local area. For example:
  • pop up libraries,
  • children’s clubs
  • Healthy living initiatives
  • Barnardo’s
  • Fitness classes

  • The practice staff were actively involved in the Plymouth International GP recruitment project attending conferences to promote services within Plymouth.

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.

Inspection carried out on 7 January 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Budshead Medical Practice on 7 January 2016. This was to review the actions taken by the provider as a result of our issuing four legal requirements.

Our previous inspection visit in November 2014 found breaches of regulation relating to the safe and well-led delivery of services.

This inspection was undertaken to check the practice was meeting regulations. For this reason we have only rated the location for the key questions to which these relate. This report should be read in conjunction with the full inspection report published on the 30 July 2015.

We found the practice had made improvements since our last inspection and was meeting the regulations that had previously been breached.

Specifically we found:

  • Staff had clear procedures to follow to ensure medicines and equipment required for resuscitation and other medical emergencies are regularly checked, maintained and in date.

  • Recruitment arrangements included all necessary risk assessments and employment checks for all staff.

  • A risk assessment was in place in relation to testing for legionella.

  • There were formal governance arrangements in place including systems for assessing and monitoring risks and the quality of the service provision.

  • Systems were in place to monitor, analyse and learn from complaints and significant events.

In addition to making improvements to the regulation breaches the practice had also acted upon suggestions for good practice as detailed in the previous inspection report.

  • All staff attended equality and diversity training in January 2015.

  • In addition to staff training records maintained in individual staff files, the practice had implemented a training log for the whole staff team.

  • The practice was producing a twice yearly patient information newsletter and publicising how the practice had responded to suggestions from patients on how to improve services at the practice.

  • The practice had revised their patient information leaflet on how to complain about services. This now included information about how to take a complaint further if they were not satisfied with the outcome of the practice investigation of their complaint.

We have amended the rating for this practice to reflect these changes. The practice is now rated good for the provision of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 12/11/2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Budshead Medical Practice is a GP practice providing primary care services for people in Plymouth. It provides services from one location in Plymouth where we carried out an announced inspection on 12 November 2014.

Patients who use the practice have access to community staff including district nurses, health visitors, mental health staff, counsellors and midwives.

We rated this practice overall as requires improvement.

Specifically, we found the practice requires improvement for providing safe services and also for well led services. It was good for providing an effective, caring and responsive service to the patient population groups.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Patients felt they were treated with dignity and respect and in a professional manner that showed kindness and care towards them.
  • Patients considered the appointment system to be fair and easy to use. They were able to see a GP on the day of requesting an appointment.
  • The practice ethos was patient-centred with a pro-active management of patient care and recognition of vulnerable patients who may need additional support and care.
  • The practice benefited from positive support of education and further learning promoted for staff by the partners.
  • Patient safety was compromised because systems and processes were not in place to minimise risks to safety. Whilst significant events were discussed at a whole staff meeting, the practice did not have a designated system in place for reporting, recording and monitoring, which showed learning from significant events. Emergency equipment was not managed safely.
  • The practice had a clear complaints procedure that was displayed in the waiting room where there were also leaflets for patients.  Information was also available on the website. However there was a lack of detailed recording, or actions taken.
  • The practice did not have a defined leadership structure in place and limited formal governance arrangements.

Importantly the provider must:

  • Ensure staff have clear procedures to follow to ensure medicines and equipment required for resuscitation and other medical emergencies are regularly checked, maintained and in date.
  • Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary risk assessments and employment checks for all staff.
  • Ensure that a risk assessment is in place in relation to testing for legionella.
  • Ensure there are formal governance arrangements in place including systems for assessing and monitoring risks and the quality of the service provision.

In addition the provider should:

  • Ensure systems are in place to monitor, analyse and learn from complaints and significant events.
  • Ensure that staff receive training about equality and diversity  awareness according to their role.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice