You are here

C.B. Patel & Partners Requires improvement Also known as Hayes Medical Centre

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 December 2019

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at C. B. Patel & Partners (Hayes Medical Centre) on 2 October 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection, we followed up on breaches of regulations identified at a previous inspection on 29 January 2019. Previous reports on this practice can be found on our website at: https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-551034159.

At this inspection, we found that the practice had demonstrated improvements in most areas, however, they were required to make further improvements.

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 requires improvement overall and good overall for all population groups, with the exception of people with long-term conditions and working age people (including those recently retired and students) which are rated as requires improvement.

We rated the practice as r

equires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services because:

  • The practice had demonstrated improvements in governance arrangements, however, they were required to make further improvements.
  • The practice had failed to address some concerns highlighted during the previous inspection in a timely manner which included monitoring the prescribing competence of non-medical prescribers and the management of blank prescriptions.
  • The practice was unable to demonstrate that they had an appropriate system to monitor the registration of clinical staff on an ongoing basis.
  • Some staff had raised dissatisfaction regarding the staffing levels at the practice.
  • The practice was unable to provide documentary evidence of an asbestos survey.
  • The practice was unable to provide satisfactory assurance that the steps they had taken had improved the outcomes for patients with diabetes. The practice’s performance on quality indicators related to patients with diabetes was below the local and the national averages.
  • The practice’s uptake of the national screening programme for cervical and bowel cancer screening was below the national averages.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by the management.

We rated the practice as good for providing caring and responsive services because:

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Feedback from most patients reflected that they were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The practice was encouraging patients to register for online services and 52% of patients were registered to use online Patient Access.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.

We rated all population groups as good for providing responsive services. We rated all population groups as good for providing effective services, with the exception of people with long-term conditions and working age people (including those recently retired and students) which are rated as requires improvement, because of the poor outcomes for patients with diabetes, low cervical and bowel cancer screening rates.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider ways to improve the identification of carers to enable this group of patients to access the care and support they need.
  • Review patients’ feedback regarding telephone access to the service.
  • Update the details on the practice’s website.
  • Continue to encourage and monitor the childhood immunisation uptake.

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

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Effective

Requires improvement

Caring

Good

Responsive

Good

Well-led

Requires improvement
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Requires improvement

Families, children and young people

Good

Older people

Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Requires improvement

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good