You are here

Yardley Green Medical Centre Good Also known as Yardley Doctors

Reports


Review carried out on 12 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Yardley Green Medical Centre on 12 July 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.

Inspection carried out on 23 June 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Waddell and partners practice also known as Yardley Green Medical Centre on 14 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. The full comprehensive report on the April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Waddell and partners practice surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced desk based inspection carried out on 23 June 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the required improvements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 14 April 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall, the practice continues to be rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Documentation provided as part of our desktop review showed that all non-clinical staff had a Disclosure and Barring Service DBS check in place.

  • At our April 2016 inspection, health and safety risk assessment we viewed lacked sufficient details to enable effective management of risks. As part of our desktop review, the practice provided copies of their health and safety risk assessment, which showed clear procedures for monitoring and managing risks. The practice also provided copies of a detailed cleaning schedule policy which demonstrated measures to maintain standards of cleanliness.

  • Data from 2015/16 QOF year showed that overall clinical exception reporting rate remained above average. For example, 18%, compared to local and national average of 10%. The practice provided unverified data from 2016/17 QOF year which showed exception reporting for mental health, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and cervical screening remained above local and national average. (Exception reporting is the removal of patients from QOF calculations where, for example, the patients are unable to attend a review meeting or certain medicines cannot be prescribed because of side effects).

  • The practice was aware of their performance and continued to follow recognised processes to improve performance.

  • A nominated staff member was responsible for overseeing the patient recall system to ensure health review reminder letters were combined into one invite rather than patients receiving several different reminders letters. The practice also explained that they were planning to run several drop-in clinics for rheumatoid arthritis, dementia and other health related issues in order to offer more flexibility for patients to attend.

  • At our previous inspection, we found that the when responding to complaints the tone of the responses was not always sensitive to the concerns of the complainant.Documentation provided by the practice as part of this desktop review showed that the practice responded to complaints with openness and transparency.

  • Results from the January 2016 national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was below local and national averages with the exception of patients who found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP.

  • Results from the July 2016 national GP patient survey showed that patient satisfaction had declined in some areas and improved in other areas. For example, satisfaction with the practice opening times and phone access had declined. However, access to a preferred GP had improved.

  • The practice carried out internal surveys to monitor patient satisfaction. Unverified data provided by the practice showed that within a three month period the practice answered between 94% and 98% of all calls.

  • The practice’s computer system alerted GPs if a patient was a carer. Staff we spoke with explained that since the previous inspection the practice updated their carers form and increased the amount of carers’ posters around the practice. We were also told that further improvements include updating carers’ information on the practice website and staff were developing a carer’s corner with the support of their patient participation group (PPG).

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to continue to make improvements. For example, the provider should:

  • Continue to review national GP patient survey results and explore effective ways to improve patient satisfaction.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 14 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Waddell and Partners on 14 April 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • The practice was located in one of the most deprived areas in the country, it had a predominantly younger and cultural diverse population which created a challenge to the practice.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and were generally well managed but sometimes lacked the detail needed for staff to follow and did not include robust recruitment checks.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained and had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. Data showed positive outcomes for patients.
  • 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they experienced difficulties accessing the service in particular getting through on the phone. The practice had recently installed a new telephone system which they hoped would improve the situation.
  • Patients were usually able to get an appointment with a named GP. Urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • 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.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary employment checks for all staff.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review risk assessments in place to ensure they provide sufficient detail for staff to follow and effectively manage risks.
  • Review exception reporting where it is high to identify the reasons for this and implement any action as appropriate to improve patient uptake.
  • Review and monitor access to appointments to evaluate changes implemented and identify any further action required to improve patient satisfaction.
  • Review responses to complaints to ensure they are sensitive to the concerns of patients.
  • Review and implement ways in which the identification of carers might be improved so that they may receive support.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice