• Doctor
  • GP practice

Temple Cowley Medical Group

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Temple Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX4 2HL (01865) 777024

Provided and run by:
Temple Cowley Medical Group

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

21 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Temple Cowley Medical Group on 21 November 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.

19 October 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Temple Cowley Medical Group on 22 February 2017. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement, with ratings of requires improvement in the safe, responsive and well-led domains. The full comprehensive report from this inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Temple Cowley Medical Group on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 19 October 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection in February 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There had been reviews of the practices’ systems and processes to improve governance and identify where improvements to service should be made.
  • The practice had assessed and mitigated risks identified during the last CQC inspection.
  • Medicines management and infection control processes had improved.
  • Patient feedback regarding waiting times had improved.

The practice made changes to its services where we suggested it should consider improvements:

  • The practice reviewed all patients who did not attend programmes for cancer screening where they were eligible to attend. The practice manager informed us that these patients were contacted to encourage them to attend screening. We reviewed data which indicated that within the Oxford locality of 25 practices the practice was ranked ninth for bowel cancer screening and fifth for cervical cancer screening for 25 to 49 year olds.
  • The system for reviewing and acting on patient correspondence had improved and we saw that the workflow of clinical letters and correspondence was well managed. There were no significant backlogs of unreviewed patient correspondence on the day of inspection.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

22 February 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Our previous announced comprehensive inspection in July 2016 found breaches of regulations relating to the effective delivery of service. The overall rating of the practice was good. Specifically, the practice was rated good for providing safe, caring, responsive and well-led services and require improvement for the provision of effective services.

After the inspection we had received information of concern from a whistle-blower in relation to patients being placed at risk. In response we carried out an unannounced focused inspection on 28 September 2016. We found breaches of regulations relating to the safe, effective and well-led delivery of services. The practice was not rated during the September 2016 focussed inspection.

Both inspection reports (July 2016 and September 2016) can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Temple Cowley Medical Group on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. Following both inspections, we received action plans which set out what actions the practice would take to achieve compliance.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Temple Cowley Medical Group on 22 February 2017. We carried out this inspection to check that the practice was meeting the regulations and to consider whether sufficient improvements had been made.

At this inspection, we found the practice had made some improvements. However, there were areas highlighted during the previous inspections where improvements are still required. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement. Specifically, we found the practice to require improvement for the provision of safe, responsive and well led services. The practice was rated good for providing effective and caring services. Consequently we rated all population groups as requires improvement.

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

  • The practice had demonstrated significant improvement in monitoring of document management system, referral management system and record keeping.
  • The practice had carried out a comprehensive risk assessment of branch premises to assess suitability of the premises.
  • The practice had taken steps to improve the waiting times for patients on the day of their appointment. However, it was too early to assess the positive impact of some changes made. The patients and staff we spoke with informed us that patients still had to wait a long time in the waiting area and patients said they were not satisfied with the poor availability of pre-bookable appointment with GPs.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and managed. However, improvements were required in relation to infection control training, infection control measures and the management of blank prescription forms for use in printers which had not been monitored appropriately.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Data showed the practice had demonstrated improvements in patient’s outcomes.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Data from the national GP patient survey showed patient outcomes were varied in comparison to others in locality and the national average.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • There was a clear leadership structure. However, some staff said they would like the communication and interaction to be improved between the leadership and staff.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure and improve the management and tracking of blank prescription forms to use in printers, to ensure this is in accordance with national guidance.
  • Ensure and improve the appointment booking system and waiting times for patients in relation to their allotted appointment time.
  • Ensure all staff has received infection control training relevant to their role.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider completing a disability access audit of the main premises.
  • Review and improve the systems in place regarding infection control measures.
  • Consider information posters and leaflets are available in multi-languages and continue to encourage the uptake for the bowel screening programme and other services.
  • Consider staff feedback to promote effective communication and provide the opportunity to engage in discussions about how to run and develop the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

28 September 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an unannounced focused inspection of Temple Cowley Medical Group on 28 September 2016. The inspection was carried out because we had received information of concern from a whistle-blower in relation to patients being placed at risk. These concerns referred to the poor monitoring and management of patient correspondence in a timely manner. In addition there were concerns that referrals were not processed on time and consultation notes were not always documented. We were also informed that staff time keeping and waiting time in the waiting area were not monitored effectively. We found the service was not meeting fundamental standards and had breached regulations. Specifically, we found concerns and regulatory breaches relating to the safe care and treatment, and management and leadership of the practice.

The practice was not rated during this focussed inspection. Our previous announced comprehensive inspection in July 2016 found issues relating to the effective delivery of care and treatment and we asked the practice to make improvements. The practice was rated good for providing safe, caring, responsive and well-led services. This report should be read in conjunction with the full inspection report published on 21 September 2016.

Our key findings during this focussed inspection were as follows:

  • Patients were placed at risk of harm because the practice had failed to act on patient correspondence in a timely manner. There was no system in place to ensure that patient correspondence across the practice managed appropriately.
  • There were inconsistent arrangements in how risks were assessed and managed. For example, during the inspection we found risks relating to referral management system, failure to seek external specialist advice for complex cases and the practice did not carry out a formal written risk assessment to assess the suitability of the premises at the branch location.
  • We noted inconsistent record keeping arrangements. For example, consultation notes were not always documented in patient records and the practice did not ensure to integrate dermatology photographs within the patient information management system.
  • Time keeping and long waiting times in the waiting area were not monitored effectively.
  • The practice had limited governance arrangements to enable assessment and monitoring of the service.
  • Staff we spoke with informed us they felt supported in their role and the management was approachable and always took time to listen to all members of staff.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Further review, assess and monitor the governance arrangements in place to ensure the delivery of safe and effective services. For example, monitoring of document management system, referral management system and improve record keeping.
  • Review and improve the systems in place to act on patient correspondence and referrals in a timely manner.
  • Develop a more structured approach and seek specialist advice to ensure complex cases of patients experiencing poor mental health, and drug and alcohol related conditions are managed appropriately.
  • Review and improve the systems in place to monitor staff time keeping effectively and waiting times for patients in relation to their allotted appointment time.
  • Ensure risks related to the branch location are identified, documented and mitigated to assess suitability of the premises.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Temple Cowley Medical Group on 14 July, 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and managed.
  • 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. However, we found that not all clinical staff had received recent training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect, but were not always satisfied with access to appointments or the time and attention that clinicians were able to provide.
  • 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.
  • Urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • The practice was equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. The practice was aware of the limitations placed on it by its aging premises, and had plans in place to address this
  • The practice had recently experienced an extended period of staff shortages. While this had significantly improved, it acknowledged the impact this had had on staff and patients. It had identified the link between this challenging period and below average results in some areas of clinical outcome and patient satisfaction. Action plans had been drawn up to address these issues.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • The practice was working to proactively seek feedback from patients to assist with its planning how to improve services.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

The practice had 176 patients on its mental health register, which represented 2% of its patient list, with more than a third living in controlled residential environments. The practice was proactive in its liaison with local community and residential mental health services to ensure that the needs of these patients were met. This included allocating a named GP for a residential home for patients with mental health illnesses and a named practice nurse to undertake care plan reviews at the practice or through home visits to patients unwilling or unable to attend the surgery.

The practice was in regular communication with the organisation which provided other supported accommodation for patients with mental health conditions, and it ensured that patients prescribed high risk anti-psychotic medicines were closely monitored under a shared care pathway. Annual care plan review rates for patients with mental health conditions and dementia were above local and national averages and the majority of its mental health care plan reviews were completed in conjunction with local psychiatric teams.

The practice used the care plan review process to undertake opportunistic work to address patients' other health issues, including flu vaccination and smoking cessation support, which had resulted in 13 patients on the mental health register giving up smoking.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure that all planned work is undertaken to increase patients’ attendance of reviews for long-term conditions, child immunisations and cancer screenings.

In addition, the provider should:

  • Establish an audit trail to ensure that medicine and equipment safety alerts are acted on by clinicians.

  • Continue to ensure that the practice premises meets accessibility expectations for patients with disabilities through the installation of an automatic entrance door and a hearing loop.

  • Continue to work to improve patient satisfaction through patient feedback to ensure it meets the needs of the patients and the practice.

  • Ensure that all clinical staff have training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, so that consent to treatment is sought appropriately for all patients.

  • Follow up children who have failed to attend booked hospital appointments or immunisation appointments, and identify adult patients known to be subject to safeguarding concerns on their records, as a safeguarding responsibility.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice