We carried out a review of the data available to us about Queen's Medical Centre 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 Queen's Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Queens Medical Centre on 18 August 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
This desktop review asked two key questions:
Is the practice safe? Processes had been improved so that staff had clear guidance about the steps to take if they suspected patients were at risk of abuse. All of the staff had received safeguarding training relevant to their role and responsibilities.
Is the practice well led? Written information showed the practice was learning from audits and had assurance of appropriate arrangements for safeguarding adults and reduction of potential risks. For example, audits now provide evidence that emergency equipment is safe to use and in date.
The next inspection of the practice will cover all five key questions to establish if the practice is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.
We gave short notice of this inspection because we needed to meet the practice manager, as the registered manager had retired. Following the last inspection, we had received an action plan from the provider, which showed how they intended to become compliant with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
At this inspection, we wanted to see if patients received a safe, effective and well led service in relation to specific areas to be followed up. We did not speak to patients using the service because the areas we needed to follow up related to management systems with the purpose of reducing potential risks to patients. We saw improvement in some aspects of quality monitoring systems and working practices. For example, the practice had implemented robust recruitment and safe management of medicines systems so was compliant. However, other audits were not effective in providing assurance of appropriate arrangements for safeguarding adults or reduction in potential risks. Some clinical emergency equipment was out of date. This demonstrated audits implemented since our last inspection were not yet robust in providing assurance of patient safety. We considered these risks to be minimal and rectifiable. We have taken the proportionate step of repeating one compliance action to enable the provider to become fully compliant with the associated regulations. We have also made another compliance action with regard to safeguarding adults.
People told us they received the treatment, care and support they needed. We were told, 'Lovely GP.' 'Very happy with GP.' One person told us they routinely saw their own GP but when they were not able to they were, 'pleasantly surprised that the new GP knew what was needed.' Although this was not the experience of some of the people we spoke with.
We identified there were areas of improvement required. Appropriate checks were not carried out on staff to make sure they were appropriate to be working with vulnerable adults or children. The practice for the management of medicines was not robust and safe. There were gaps in how the provider monitored the quality of the services it provided.