The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: St James Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

11 Carlton Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 2HW (01892) 541634

Provided and run by:
St James Medical Centre

All Inspections

10 February 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St James Medical Centre on 10 February 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led services.

It was also good for providing services for the care of older people, the care of people with long-term conditions, the care of working age people (including those recently retired and students), the care of families, children and young people, the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients, staff and to the building were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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 and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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. Some issues relating to the building were unresolved from the time of our last inspection. However the practice had a planning application lodged with the local authority to extend the premises, which would alleviate the problem.
  • 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.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

  • Review its auditing activity to help to ensure its effectiveness and to more closely reflect the population it serves.
  • Improve its recording of patients who had, or were, carers so that they could be more easily identified on the practice computer system.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 May 2014

During a routine inspection

St James Medical Centre has a patient population of approximately 5,800 patients. The practice is located in a converted house. We visited the practice on 21 May 2014 as part of this inspection.

We spoke with ten patients during the inspection and received feedback via comment cards from eight patients. We met the chair of the Patient Participation Group (PPG). We spoke with staff including three GPs, two nurses, a health care assistant and a receptionist.

Patients received safe care. Learning from incidents took place to improve safety. Staff received training in safeguarding and were aware of how to report any suspicion of abuse. Staff were provided with training in medical emergencies. Patients were protected from avoidable harm.

The practice provided effective care and treatment that met patient needs. Clinical guidance was referred to and followed by staff.

Staff were aware and responsive to patients' needs. The premises restricted some patients’ ability to access the premises independently. GP partners were working towards a solution to address the accessibility restrictions. The appointment system caused some patients problems, specifically when trying to book appointments for the same day.

We found patient feedback was sought and responded to. Complaints were investigated robustly and responded to promptly. The last patient survey did not raise any concerns regarding the appointment system.

Staff were considerate, respectful and courteous with patients. Confidentiality and privacy were maintained by staff.

Staff told us there was an open culture where feedback was encouraged and acted on. Communication between staff was facilitated through regular meetings. There was effective monitoring of the service which identified and responded to concerns and identified improvements. However, some learning was not communicated to staff when improvements were identified.

The practice did not ensure patients were protected from the risks associated with unsafe or unsuitable premises because the design and layout of the building was not suitable to ensure safe access. The service was not meeting the essential standards of quality and safety. We have issued a compliance action.