• Doctor
  • GP practice

Highcliffe Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

248 Lymington Road, Highcliffe, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 5ET (01425) 272203

Provided and run by:
Highcliffe Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Highcliffe 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 Highcliffe Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

6 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Highcliffe Medical Centre on 6 August 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.

23 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Highcliffe Medical Centre on 22 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The majority of risks to patients were assessed and well managed. However, we found an area of infection control involving the use of shower trays which should be addressed by the practice.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice liaised closely with a carer’s champion employed by a registered charity who signposted carers to relevant services and advice. The equivalent of 4% of the patient list were identified as carers. The carers champion had also successfully developed and ran a male carers group, which had the positive impact of reducing social isolation and providing relevant support for approximately 30 male carers.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • 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.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

The practice succeeded in reducing the number of unplanned hospital admissions through the employment of an outreach nursing team which proactively supported patients aged over 75 years by carrying out frequent home visits, advanced care planning and regular reviews.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

The provider should review processes and risk assessments for infection control in regard of the usage and cleaning of shower trays for the treatment of leg ulcers, in line with current practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice