The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Townsend Medical Centre Also known as Dr S. Singh & Dr J Mendiguren

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

98 Townsend Lane, Anfield, Liverpool, Merseyside, L6 0BB (0151) 295 9510

Provided and run by:
Townsend Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

15 June 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Townsend Medical Centre on 15 June 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.

5 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Townsend Medical Centre on 5 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • The practice is situated in a purpose built health centre that also housed three other GP practices and a range of community services. The practice name was very similar to that of the building. This caused confusion for patients as they would telephone the practice when they required other services available within the building. In addition, the practice’s reception desk was the first desk in the building that patients accessed. This resulted in reception staff frequently directing patients to other services in the building or dealing with queries, which increased their workload and meant the practice’s own patients were kept waiting at the desk. The practice and the patient participation group (PPG) were in discussions about this with the local commissioning group (CCG) and the owners of the building.

  • The practice was clean and had good facilities including disabled access and translation services.

  • There were systems in place to mitigate safety risks including analysing significant events and safeguarding.

  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation.

  • 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. The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service; including having a PPG and acted, where possible, on feedback.

  • Many of the staff had worked at the practice for a long time and knew the patients well. Staff worked well together as a team and all felt supported to carry out their roles.

However, there were areas where the provider should make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Make sure all staff are aware of where the oxygen in the building is located or purchase their own.

  • Update patient information for complaints to include who the patient should contact if they are unhappy with how the practice dealt with their complaint.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice