You are here

Adam House Medical Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 February 2019

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Adam House Medical Centre on 7 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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 good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness and respect, and involved them in decisions about their care. Patient interviews and feedback received through CQC comment cards supported our observations.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of good quality, person-centre care.
  • At our previous inspection in 2014, two areas were identified in which the provider should consider making further improvements; these related to the completion of audit cycles and formal clinical supervision for nurses. The practice had considered these points and was able to demonstrate the improvements they had made when we inspected in January 2019.

We saw the following area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice employed a hospital-based diabetes nurse specialist for two sessions each week. The nurse focused on achieving good outcomes for patients with complex needs and engaging them with their treatment regimes. The impact was seen by low exception reporting rates for patients with diabetes, which were more than half below the local and national exception reporting percentages.

In addition, the provider should:

  • Review the availability of risk assessments to explain the absence of some recommended emergency medicines on site.
  • Ensure that vaccine storage is maintained in line with guidance at all times.
  • Improve the identification of carers to enable this group of patients to access the care and support they need.
  • Improve the uptake of annual health reviews for patients with a learning disability.
  • Review the practice complaints policy and procedure to ensure these were in line with recognised guidance

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Effective

Good

Caring

Good

Responsive

Good

Well-led

Good
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Families, children and young people

Good

Older people

Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good