The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Okeahialam and Partners Also known as Leylands Medical Centre

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

81 Leylands Lane, Heaton, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD9 5PZ (01274) 770771

Provided and run by:
Dr Okeahialam and Partners

All Inspections

04 September 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Okeahialam and Partners on 1 and 4 September 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Safe - requires improvement.

Effective - requires improvement.

Caring – good.

Responsive – requires improvement.

Well-led – good.

Following a previous inspection on 17 November 2019, the practice was rated as good overall and for all key questions. In 2019, in line with CQC methodology at the time, the population group of people with long-term conditions was rated as requires improvement.

At this inspection we examined areas where the provider had been previously informed they should make improvement during the 2019 inspection. This included:

  • Adding details of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to patient complaint correspondence should a patient wish to escalate their complaint.
  • Continuing to ensure all actions in relation to Infection Prevention and Control audits were completed.
  • Continuing to review and improve systems for monitoring and supporting people with long-term conditions.

We found that actions had been undertaken, however more progress was still required regarding monitoring and supporting people with long-term conditions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Okeahialam and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection to follow up concerns which were reported to us.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video and telephone conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short visits to the provider sites.
  • Staff questionnaires
  • Requesting feedback from patients via the ‘share your experience’ link on the CQC website.

Our findings

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 found that:

  • Patients’ needs were assessed. However, care and treatment had not always been delivered in line with current standards and evidence-based guidance. For example, we identified concerns in relation to medicines management, the diagnosis of conditions, and monitoring and follow-up of patients with long-term conditions.
  • The provider had experienced the loss of 4 key members of their management team in 2022. This had proved a significant challenge to the organisation, and had impacted on the clinical and management workload of partners. Since this time, the provider had appointed new staff and restructured and reorganised the delivery of some services.
  • The provider had developed specific teams such as an acute care team to increase capacity and improve care.
  • The provider had a programme of quality improvement activities in place which included clinical audit.
  • Child immunisation and cancer screening rates were below local and national averages and targets. We saw that the provider had recognised this and had either put into place, or was planning measures to improve these areas of underperformance.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Some patients reported difficulty in accessing care and treatment in a timely way. We saw that the provider had put in place measures to meet the challenge of patient demand. This included the development of specific work teams, and proposed upgrades to the telephony system. We saw that overall numbers of appointments had increased by around 16% from 2019/20 to 2022/23.
  • Engagement with patients was mixed. Detailed patient survey work had been undertaken, however routine engagement with patients and patient representatives was limited.
  • The provider had processes in place to monitor and manage performance.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

  • The provider had a feedback button embedded in the clinical system which allowed staff to record and report feedback, incidents, and concerns immediately. This included feedback from patients. This greatly improved the collection of feedback and the opportunity to raise concerns and issues in a timely manner.
  • The provider had engaged with the local patient population to identify views and concerns which acted as barriers to participating in the cervical screening programme. They had also begun to do the same for parents and guardians of children in respect of child immunisations. Findings were to be used to increase take-up.

We found one breach of regulation. The provider must:

  • Ensure that care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

In addition, the provider should:

  • Work to improve cervical screening, breast and bowel screening rates.
  • Improve childhood immunisation rates.
  • Improve the uptake of learning disability health checks.
  • Continue to implement measures to improve capacity.
  • Put in place measures to increase and improve patient feedback mechanisms.
  • Complete appraisals for staff within the required time period.
  • Continue to work to improve patient access to the service.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

7 November 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Okeahialam and Partners on 7 November 2019.

In February 2019, the provider was approached by NHS Bradford Districts Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to provide interim management of a local GP practice known as The Heaton Medical Practice. This practice had been inspected on 11 November 2018 and was rated inadequate overall and placed into special measures. Dr Okeahialam and Partners became the new provider of The Heaton Medical Practice on 1 August 2019. They were chosen as the preferred provider through a process managed by Bradford Districts CCG. The Heaton Medical Practice was registered as a location within Dr Okeahialam and Partners’ registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

When Dr Okeahialam and Partners were awarded the contract to manage The Heaton Medical Practice, numerous concerns had not been addressed by the previous provider. This included, but was not limited to, lack of systems and risk assessment to support the health and safety of patients; a lack of appropriate systems to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from abuse; the management of medicines and prescription stationery; provision of suitably qualified staff; lack of governance and the management of complaints.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Okeahialam and Partners on 7 November 2019. During the inspection, we paid particular attention to the concerns and breaches that had been identified at The Heaton Medical Practice inspection. These related to Regulation 12: safe care and treatment, Regulation 17: good governance and Regulation 16: receiving and acting on complaints, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. Requirement and warning notices had been issued to the previous provider in relation to those breaches.

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

• Information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups apart from people with long-term conditions, which we rated as requires improvement.

At this inspection on 7 November 2019, we found that:

• All issues and breaches of regulation, which had been previously noted at The Heaton Medical Practice location, had been acted upon. The new provider, Dr Okeahialam and Partners, had also responded to patient feedback and identified further areas for improvement within the service.

• The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected from avoidable harm. Staff told us they felt safe working at the practice and were supported by visible and approachable leaders.

• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. Outcomes for patients were regularly monitored.

• The practice organised and delivered services to meet and respond to patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.

• The leadership and management of the practice promoted the delivery of high-quality, compassionate, person-centred care.

• There was evidence of a mobilisation plan which the practice had used to support the development of The Heaton Medical Practice site. This was to ensure they had identified and actioned all issues.

• There was a proactive patient participation group, who worked with the practice to improve patients’ experiences of the service.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• The practice patient participation group, supported by the practice, had established a support group for carers of people with a diagnosis of dementia. Funding support from local stakeholders had been acquired. The idea was in the early stages of being rolled out across the Bradford District.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Update the final written response to complaints to include details of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, should a patient wish to refer their complaint.

• Continue to review and improve systems for monitoring and supporting people with long-term conditions in relating to Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF).

• Continue to ensure all actions relating to infection prevention and control audits are completed.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Tuesday 15 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Brooke & Partners, Leylands Lane Medical Centre on 15 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.

  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice.

  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently and strongly positive.

  • The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they met patients’ needs. For example, the practice offered musculoskeletal and sports medicine clinics, rheumatology, sexual health, contraception & gynaecology, diabetes consultations and minor surgery, cardiology and ophthalmology.

  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group. For example, the practice offered a walk in clinic, and had introduced a self-help room and the digital dashboard.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.

  • The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority.

    The strategy to deliver this vision had been produced with stakeholders and was regularly reviewed and discussed with staff.

    We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice has led a project involving schools and a local children’s centre which involved taking a ‘Healthy Living’ bus into primary schools every week promoting self-care to children and parents. The practice took an active part in national self-care week last year which included a full afternoon first aid awareness event by Yorkshire Ambulance Service, and practice Open Day with health promotion stands and education sessions.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice