You are here

Archived: FMC Health Solutions Limited Good Also known as Park View Surgery

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 October 2019

We carried out an announced focused inspection at FMC Health Solutions Limited at Park View Surgery 18 September 2019. The practice was previously inspected by the Care Quality Commission on 15 September 2015, when it received a rating of Good overall, with a rating of outstanding for providing well led services and for the provision of services to people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us, and due to the relocation of the service to a new premises. This inspection looked at the following key questions; are services safe, are services effective and are services well-led. At the time of inspection the practice was in the process of re-registering the new practice location with the Care Quality Commission.

We based our judgement on 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
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

At the previous inspection on 15 September 2015 the practice was rated as outstanding for providing well led services. Following this inspection, we have rated the practice as good. This is because initiatives and practices that were previously regarded as innovative or unusual may no longer be so.

We found that:

  • The practice worked under an overarching, parent organisation Health Care First Partnership (partners from the practice were also partners of Health Care First Partnership). This gave patients from the practice access to additional appointments via a shared practice list, and these patients were also able to receive a wider range of services.
  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes. Learning from incidents was shared with others to prevent recurrence.
  • The practice closely monitored operational performance and, working with Health Care First Partnership, had developed dedicated performance and quality improvement processes. The service had, using guidance, produced their own service standards. It was though noted that some clinical audits lacked depth, and that a dedicated audit programme had not been specifically developed for the practice.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • Services had been developed to meet the specific needs of their population. For example, they operated a triage and patient call back service which was particularly beneficial to patients with acute conditions or those who experienced poor mental health.
  • The practice worked with others at a locality level to plan and develop services.
  • Staff told us they felt supported and valued by the leadership team at the practice.
  • Patients received structured reviews of their care and treatment and received advice and support to manage their symptoms.
  • We saw processes were in place to develop and support both clinical and non-clinical staff.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Review and improve measures to give assurance that staff immunity status has been fully assessed in relation to MMR and Varicella.
  • Review and improve the frequency of fire alarm checks.
  • Review processes to ensure decisions in relation to not stocking emergency medicines were supported by suitable and sufficient risk assessments.
  • Review practice performance with regard to the prescribing of Hypnotics.
  • Review and seek to improve cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening patient take-up.
  • Review clinical audit processes to ensure audits were of sufficient depth and that subject areas were re-audited to track improvement.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS MDedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

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