We carried out a review of the data available to us about Fullwell Cross 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 Fullwell Cross Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection December 2016 – Good)
The key questions are rated as:
Are services safe? – Good
Are services well-led? - Good
We carried out an announced focused inspection at Fullwell Cross Medical Centre on 2 May 2018. We undertook this inspection in response to concerns identified and brought to the attention of the commission. This was a focused inspection which looked at the Safe and Well-led key questions.
At this inspection we found:
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Fullwell Cross Medical Centre on 14 December 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
We saw one area of outstanding practice:
The practice had identified that their elderly patient population was higher than the local average and in response the practice had introduced the post of Care of the Elderly Health Care Assistant (HCA). This was a Monday to Friday service (30 hours per week) providing home visits for urgent and routine assessments for elderly and housebound patients and patients receiving palliative care. The HCA was contactable via mobile phone by both patients and staff and was supported in this role by the GP lead for older patients.
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
During this inspection we found that improvements had been made. People told us they were happy with the service provided by the medical staff at the practice. One person said 'I don't feel rushed I am happy here. Some doctors have more time for you'. Another person said 'doctors do treat you with respect, they allow time to ask questions'. People told us the GPs were approachable and listened.
Most people we spoke with on the day of our inspection told us they had been able to make an appointment that day, at a time which suited them. Some people still had difficulty in making an appointment using the telephone system or getting an appointment with their preferred GP or nurse. People we spoke with had positive views about the reception staff at the practice and said they were helpful and respected their privacy. The Patient Participation Group felt involved in improvements at the centre.
Some people we spoke with on the day of our inspection told us they had been able to make an appointment which suited them on that day. However, the majority of people told us it was difficult firstly to get an appointment and secondly an appointment with a named GP, or nurse. People we spoke with had mixed views about the reception staff at the practice. Some people said they were very pleasant. Others told us that some reception staff could be 'negative' and sometimes rude. We also found that people's privacy and dignity was not respected in every case.
People's care was planned and delivered in a way that met their individual needs. We looked at four people's records regarding chronic disease planning, care and advice. There was evidence that a plan was discussed with patients and appropriate referrals made.
We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had procedures in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children and medical staff we spoke with were aware of these procedures. The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. There were adequate systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.