We carried out a review of the data available to us about Clanricarde 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 Clanricarde Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection September 2015 – Good)
The key questions are rated as:
Are services safe? – Good
Are services effective? – Good
Are services caring? – Good
Are services responsive? – Good
Are services well-led? - Good
As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:
Older People – Good
People with long-term conditions – Good
Families, children and young people – Good
Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good
People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good
People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Clanricarde Medical Centre on 9 January 2018, under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
At this inspection we found:
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.
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.
Staff involved patients in their care and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
Continue to ensure that fridge temperatures are routinely monitored and recorded.
Continue with their plan to help ensure health checks for patients with learning disabilities are offered.
Continue to ensure that minutes of multi-disciplinary meetings are maintained.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Clanricarde Medical Centre on 22 September 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
We saw several areas of outstanding practice namely:
However there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
Clanricarde Medical Centre is situated at Abbey Court, 7-15 St John’s Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN4 9TF.
The practice is registered to provide the following regulated activities.
We spoke with 14 patients on the day of our inspection. Patients considered their health care needs were met and they were usually able to book an appointment at a time convenient for them. They said that staff respected their privacy and dignity and they were involved in decision making.
Overall the practice was responsive to individual patients needs and provided positive outcomes, but further improvements were needed in some areas, such as telephone access.
There was a system to carry out regular clinical audits, and the results were discussed at clinical meetings. Improvements were made if needed and were monitored so that care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with best practice.
There were suitable procedures in place to identify and report concerns if staff considered a patient was at risk of being abused.
There was a clear strategy in place for clinical governance arrangements, but improvements were needed on overall governance of the service provided.
There was an active Patient Participation Group who considered they were listened and responded to when they suggested areas for improvement; even if the improvements could not be made.
Staff were not formally asked for their feedback in a survey, but considered they were able to raise any issues with the practice manager or GPs. Although training for all staff was in place, there was no information on how often training should occur and whether this had been planned for.