You are here

Dr Geraldine Golden & Dr Michael Abu Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 June 2019

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Geraldine Golden & Dr Michael Abu (locally known as Kenton Bridge Medical Centre) on 2 May 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

At the last inspection in April 2018, we rated the practice as requires improvement overall and specifically requires improvement for providing safe and effective services because:

  • There were inconsistent arrangements in how risks were assessed and managed. For example, during the inspection, we found risks relating to fire safety arrangements, recruitment checks and management of blank prescription forms.
  • The practice was unable to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate that all staff had received training relevant to their role.
  • There was some evidence of quality improvement activity including the clinical audit.

Previous reports on this practice can be found on our website at:

www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-543946347

.

At this inspection, we found that the provider had demonstrated improvements in most areas, however, they were required to make further improvements in some areas and are rated as requires improvement for providing effective services.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service 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.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for population groups: older people; people whose circumstances make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health and requires improvement for People with long-term conditions, families, children and young people and working age people (including those recently retired and students) for providing effective services, because of high exception reporting, low uptake of childhood immunisations and low cervical screening rates.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:

  • The practice’s uptake of the childhood immunisations rates was significantly below the national averages.
  • The practice’s uptake of the national screening programme for cervical cancer was below the local and the national averages.
  • The level of exception reporting was above the clinical commissioning group (CCG) average and the national average for a number of Quality Outcome Framework (QOF) indicators.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

We rated the practice as good for providing safe, caring, responsive and well-led services because:

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed in most areas, with the exception of those relating to the management of uncollected prescriptions, which were not monitored appropriately.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and report incidents and near misses. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment mostly in a timely way, although the next available appointment with the practice nurse was three weeks away.
  • Information about services and how to complain were available and easy to understand.
  • The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by the management.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and improve the current arrangements regarding uncollected prescriptions so vulnerable patients needs are fully considered.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Inspection areas

Effective

Requires improvement
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Requires improvement

Families, children and young people

Requires improvement

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Requires improvement

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good