The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Irlam and Partners

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

27 Southchurch Boulevard, Southend On Sea, Essex, SS2 4UB (01702) 468443

Provided and run by:
Dr Irlam and Partners

All Inspections

13 December 2024

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Irlam & Partners (Central Surgery) on 13 December 2023. Overall the practice is rated as Requires Improvement.

Safe – requires improvement

Effective - good

Caring - good

Responsive - requires improvement

Well-led - good

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection in line with our inspection priorities.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

Our findings

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 found that:

  • Some patients’ care needs were not always reviewed and monitored in line with current legislation and standards.
  • Safety alerts were not consistently discussed with patients as recommended.
  • Staff had received appropriate training and there were effective health and safety risk assessments.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could not always access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

We found 1 breach of regulations. The provider must:

  • Improve the documented approach to the management of test results.
  • Ensure that all patients received effective treatment and medicine reviews.
  • Improve the system to respond to safety alerts from a variety of sources, including The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, (MHRA), and Central Alerting System, (CAS).

The provider should:

  • Continue to take action to ensure the safe management of the documents inbox.
  • Continue with efforts to improve the uptake of cervical screening.
  • Progress work with the installation of a new telephony system to improve patient satisfaction relating to access results across all 4 indicators in the National GP Patient Survey.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

13 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Irlam and Partners on 13 January 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • The practice ensured that when things went wrong that these were investigated and learning was shared with staff. Risks to patients and staff were assessed and well managed. There were systems for assessing risks including those associated with medicines, premises, equipment and infection control.
  • There was a detailed business continuity plan to deal with untoward incidents that may affect the day to day running of the practice.
  • Staff were recruited robustly with all of the appropriate checks carried out to determine each person’s suitability and fitness to work at the practice. This included locum nurses and GPs.

  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Clinical audits and reviews were carried out to make improvements to patient care and treatment.

  • Staff were supported and received role specific training to meet the needs of patients and there was a system for staff appraisal.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Patients who required extra support and those who were carers were identified and monitored.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately and apologies given to patients when things went wrong or they experienced poor care or services.
  • The majority of patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent and same appointments available. Late evening appointments, home visits and telephone consultations were available.
  • 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 to make improvements to the services provided.

However there one area of practice where the provider should consider making improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

  • Consider providing an automated external defibrillator as part of its emergency equipment in line with best practice guidance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

During the inspection in December 2013 we found the practice was non-compliant in the area infection control. In response to the compliance action the practice submitted an action plan explaining how people would be protected from the risk of infection.

We reviewed the evidence sent by the practice and found changes had been made and systems had been implemented. Patients, staff and other visitors were protected from the risks of acquiring an infection by systems and standards of cleanliness.

20 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who were using the service at the time of our inspection. They had all been registered with the practice for a number of years. They were generally pleased with the practice and staff, whom they said were very helpful. Two people said that, at times, they found it difficult to get a routine appointment within two weeks. Two people told us that although one doctor was very knowledgeable and competent, they did not have a very nice 'bed-side manner' and that this had been raised with the practice manager. They said that they chose not to see this doctor any more.

We also spoke with three members of the practice's patient participation group (PPG). They felt that the practice was proactive in sharing information with the group and that they were keen to get their views. The PPG had been involved in carrying out patient surveys at the practice and assisted in devising the questionnaire. One of the members we spoke with was also a member of the local Healthwatch, the national consumer champion in health and care, and was, therefore, in a good position to share and discuss issues affecting people in primary care from a national and local level.

We found that people were generally respected and well cared for by staff. We found that staff were supported to carry out their work and that the quality of the service was assessed and monitored. However, infection control practices were not meeting the required standard.