The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Honeypot Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

404 Honeypot Lane, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 1JP (020) 8204 1363

Provided and run by:
Honeypot Medical Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 9 April to 22 April. The assessment was due to the length of time since we last assessed the service. The last assessment was carried out in October 2017 and the practice was rated Good overall. Honeypot Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to 18,789 under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnicity of the practice population is 49.25% Asian, 35.25% White, 6.71% Other, 5.95% Black and 2.84% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 6th decile (6 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing. People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on delivering holistic, patient centred and personalised care, grounded in the principles of equity and tailored to the needs of their diverse local population. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement.
 

17 October 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an unannounced focused inspection at Honeypot Medical Centre on 17 October 2017 in response to concerns raised directly with CQC. This related to safety systems and processes, co-ordinating patient care, access to appointments, responding to complaints and governance of the practice. This report covers our findings in relation to the inspection on 17 October 2017. As a result of this inspection, the provider’s rating remains unchanged and stays Good overall.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had experienced a period of change in the last 12 months following a recent merger.
  • The practice had adequate infection control procedures in place and clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • There were adequate recruitment arrangements in place which included the necessary checks for all staff.
  • There were arrangements for planning and monitoring the number of staff and mix of staff needed to meet patients’ needs.
  • Clinical audits were carried out and patients’ needs were assessed; care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • Staff were aware of and provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current evidence based guidelines. They had also been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice had a system in place to ensure that paper records were stored safely and securely.
  • Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of patient confidentiality. They treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information at the reception desk and in the treatment rooms.
  • Patients described staff as friendly, caring and helpful and specifically commented on how the practice had improved in the last six months since.
  • We found that the practice had taken positive steps to improve access to appointments and patients and staff told us access to appointments had improved.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • 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.

However, there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Continue to monitor and improve patient access to the service.

  • Continue to review the national GP patient survey scores with the aim of improving patient satisfaction scores on GP and nurse consultations.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

23 December 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Honeypot Medical Centre on 23 December 2015. Overall the practice is 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 an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • 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.
  • Patients 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.
  • 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.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice offered No-One Left Alone (NOLA) appointments. Double appointments at the end of a surgery, where older people and vulnerable patient’s health and social care needs were assessed and that of their carers as well.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection, we spoke with five people who used the service and two members of the Patient Participation Group (PPG). We also spoke with five members of staff which included two GPs, the practice manager, one receptionist and one administrator.

Overall people were satisfied with the care provided. One person told us "the practice is very good” and “the doctors are brilliant”. Another told us, “I have not experienced problems getting appointments”. Patients were keen to praise the practice and were enthusiastic about the service.

We found that patients were informed and involved in the care provided to them. There were practices in place to ensure people experienced care and treatment that met their needs.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the signs of abuse and the action to take when responding to allegations or incidents of abuse. We observed that the provider had a safeguarding adults policy and a separate policy for safeguarding children.

Patients were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

We found that the provider had taken steps to ensure staff were appropriately qualified, skilled and experienced for their jobs.

We saw evidence that the provider had a system in place to monitor quality and safety.