You are here

Yorkshire Street Medical Centre Good

Reports


Review carried out on 23 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Yorkshire Street Medical Centre on 23 July 2019. 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.

Inspection carried out on 9 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Yorkshire Street Medical Practice on 9 February 2016. 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.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.

  • There were systems in place to assess and monitor risks to patients, though we noted there was no paediatric mask in place for emergency oxygen, some supplies were out of date and blind pulls had not been assessed to remove potential ligature points.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example, the practice had encouraged patients to attend exercise on prescription over many years.

  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently and strongly positive.

  • The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they met people’s needs.

  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group (PPG). For example, hand rails had been put up after a patient comment and a new ramp had been installed following feedback from the PPG.
  • The practice had a clear vision with patient care as the top priority.
  • The practice actively engaged with patient groups who may historically have been difficult to reach, for example parents of new born babies and 16 year olds.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Access to appointments was well managed. Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and there was good continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day and routine pre bookable appointments always available within 48 hours.
  • 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Complete actions to mitigate the risks identified including supplies and emergency equipment, blind pulls, alarm calls and prescription pads.

  • Develop infection prevention and control procedures to incorporate relevant blood spill guidance and sample handling.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice