You are here

Mill Street Medical Centre Good

Reports


Review carried out on 2 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Mill Street Medical Centre on 2 October 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 14 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Mill Street Medical Centre on 14 September 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • The practice is situated in extended purpose built premises. The practice was clean and had good facilities including disabled access and access to translation services.

  • The practice had recently merged with another smaller practice and provided services for 12,360 patients. The aims of the merger were to give patients a wider choice of clinicians, enhanced surgery opening times and more services.

  • The merger had come at a time when three GPs were on maternity leave and the practice had struggled to recruit GPs to cover. During this period, the practice had prioritised the appointments to acutely unwell patients, the elderly and children. The practice had revised the appointment system, employed a new salaried GP and was employing a clinical pharmacist to reduce the pressure on the appointment system.
  • There were systems in place to mitigate safety risks including analysing significant events and safeguarding.
  • The practice was aware of and had systems in place to ensure compliance with the requirements of the duty of candour. (The duty of candour is a set of specific legal requirements that providers of services must follow when things go wrong with care and treatment).

  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation.

  • 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. The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service; including having a patient participation group (PPG) and acted, where possible, on feedback.
  • Staff worked well together as a team and all felt supported to carry out their roles.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 30 January 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we were able to speak to two patients, two members of clinical staff, the practice manager, five reception staff, a secretary and two administrative support staff. We also spoke with staff from the clinical commissioning group who provided the practice with support in the management of medicines. Following our inspection we talked with three patients who contributed to the patient forum group.

Patients we spoke with told us they were happy with the service they received. One person told us "The service is very good." Another person commented, "The service is excellent. Reception staff are really lovely and extremely helpful."

The patient forum group, which represented the views of people using the practice, was very active and keen to do further work on how services were delivered. The group had recently been involved in the planning of the next annual patient survey for the practice.

We found policies and procedures in place to support the practice in the registration of new patients in a timely manner. We found patient records were updated following consultations with the GP and other professionals or agencies. This meant staff and clinicians had as much information as possible during consultations.

The practice had effective systems in place to maintain cleanliness, hygiene, and infection control protocols including the safe storage of vaccines. We reviewed the most recent infection control audits of the practice, which showed compliance with required standards.

The practice had carried out the required background checks on staff, including enhanced checks for clinical staff. Staff were given sufficient time during their induction to read and study the various policies and procedures the practice had in place. The practice manager reviewed policies and procedures on a regular basis to ensure they remained fit for purpose and took account of any change in procedures.