• Doctor
  • GP practice

Charles Road Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

192 Charles Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, West Midlands, B10 9AB (0121) 772 0398

Provided and run by:
Charles Road Surgery

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 2 August 2019

Charles Road Surgery is located in the Small Heath area of Birmingham in two converted houses adapted for providing primary medical services. There is no car parking available however, patients are able to park on streets close to the practice.

The provider is registered with CQC to deliver the Regulated Activities; diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, family planning and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Charles Road Surgery is situated within the Birmingham and Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and provides services to 5,440 patients under the terms of a General Medical Services (GMS) contract. This is a contract between general practices and NHS England for delivering services to the local community.

The provider is a partnership of three GPs (two male and one female) who registered with the CQC in 2013. The practice employs two salaried GPs (both male), one practice nurse, two healthcare assistants (one currently training as a nursing associate), a practice manager, an administrative manager and a team of reception/ administrative staff. The practice is part of the Small Heath primary care network of GP practices.

The practice is part of SDS My Healthcare Federation which provides a range of additional services to the member practices including extended access and various clinics including specialist diabetes, musculoskeletal and frailty clinics.

The practice opening times are 9am to 6.30pm, except on a Thursday when the practice closes at 1pm. When the practice is closed patients can access primary medical services through another provider (BADGER). In addition extended access appointments are available to patients at other local practices.

The area served by the practice is a densely populated inner city area. The practice population is younger than the CCG and national average. For example, 33% are under 18 years compared to the CCG average of 25% and England average of 21%. 7% of the practice population are over 65 years compared to the CCG 13% and England 17%. The National General Practice Profile states that 69% of the practice population is from an Asian background with a further 17% of the population originating from black, mixed or other non-white ethnic groups. Information published by Public Health England, rates the level of deprivation within the practice population group as one, on a scale of one to ten. Level one represents the highest levels of deprivation and level ten the lowest. Male life expectancy is 77 years compared to the national average of 79 years. Female life expectancy is 82 years compared to the national average of 83 years.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 2 August 2019

We carried out a focused inspection at Charles Road Surgery on 27 June 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Are services at this location effective?
  • Are services at this location responsive?
  • Are services at this location well-led?

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 all population groups.

We found that:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Patient outcome data (QOF) and prescribing performance was in line with CCG and national averages.
  • Staff had appropriate skills and experience to meet patient needs.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Complaints were managed appropriately and in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • Risks were generally well managed. Although we identified areas where these could be improved for example in relation to infection control and completion of audit cycles.

We have rated this practice as requires improvement for the working age population group.

We found that:

  • The practice uptake of cervical cancer screening and bowel cancer screening was below local and national averages. The practice staff were aware of the cultural sensitivities and expectations in relation to health care however, no clear plans of action had been implemented as to how this might be improved.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Review cervical screening and child immunisation data and identify how this may be improved.
  • Review service improvement activity to ensure improvements are sustained through completed audit cycles.
  • Revisit infection control audit to identify areas for improvement and take action as appropriate.
  • Consider on an individual basis the provision of a formal written care plan to be provided to relevant patients.

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