The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Jubilee Park Medical Partnership

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

61 Burton Road, Carlton, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG4 3DQ (0115) 940 4333

Provided and run by:
Jubilee Park Medical Partnership

All Inspections

16 May 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on 16 May 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - good

Effective - good

Caring - good

Responsive - good

Well-led – good

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on 6 October 2022. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our regulatory functions. The overall rating for the practice was inadequate and the practice was placed into special measures for a period of six months. We carried out an announced follow up inspection on 7 December 2022 to see if improvements had been made. This inspection was not rated, therefore, the service remained in special measures.

The practices were separate formally named Park House and Jubilee practice and merged to form Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on 1 April 2020.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

  • To look at the five key questions: services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
  • To re-inspect the breaches of regulations or areas we identified at the previous inspection, where the provider should make improvements.

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:

  • 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). This was carried out on 11 May 2023 and the findings used during the inspection.
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

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:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
  • Leaders demonstrated they had the capacity and skills to deliver high quality sustainable care.
  • Appropriate overall governance arrangements were in place.
  • Staff worked effectively together and with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice had a comprehensive programme of quality improvement activity.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed, and care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation.
  • Systems were in place to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety.

The provider should:

  • Analyse ther results of the current practice patient survey and put an action plan in place to address any concerns identified as a result.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by this 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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

07 December 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced follow-up inspection at Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on 7 December 2022 to review compliance with the warning notices served following our previous inspection on 6 October 2022.

In October 2022 the practice was rated as inadequate overall. The Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led questions were rated as inadequate and the caring question was rated as requires improvement.

This follow-up inspection on 07 December 2022 was to review compliance with the four warning notices which had to be met by 30 November 2022, but the inspection was not rated. The ratings from October 2022 therefore still apply and will be reviewed at a further inspection to take place within six months of the publication of the October inspection report. The practice remains in special measures.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a review of information, which included a remote review of clinical records and a site visit.

To check compliance with the warning notices served for breaches in Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment, Regulation 17 Good Governance, Regulation 16 Receiving and acting on complaints and Regulation 15 Premises and equipment.

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:

  • 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).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

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 have not rated this practice as the rating remains unchanged until we have completed a further inspection incorporating all relevant key questions.

Actions had been taken to address most of the areas of the breaches identified in the warning notices and it was evident improvements had been made. However, some required actions were not yet fully completed or embedded.

We found that:

  • The system to manage complaints information had improved since the last inspection.
  • The system to manage significant events had improved since the last inspection.
  • The practice had a comprehensive programme of quality and improvement activity.
  • The practice had addressed some of the concerns in relation to the premises and equipment. However, further improvements were still required. For example, in relation to legionella and management of vaccines.
  • The practice was able to show that staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.
  • There remained gaps in systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety. For example, in relation to legionella and infection control.
  • Leaders could demonstrate that they had the capacity and skills to deliver high quality sustainable care.
  • The overall governance arrangements had improved.

We found a continued breach of regulations. The provider must:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The inspection was not rated and therefore the ratings remained unchanged. The practice continues to be in special measures and will receive a further inspection to review progress in all areas within six months of the original inspection report publication date.

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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

06 October 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on 06 October 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Inadequate.

Safe - Inadequate

Effective - Inadequate

Caring - Requires improvement

Responsive - Inadequate

Well-led - Inadequate

The practices were separate formally named Park House and Jubilee practice and merged to form Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on 1 April 2020.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Jubilee Park Medical Partnership on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection due to a change in registration and concerns from patients.

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 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).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

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:

  • The practice did not provide care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients did not receive effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could not access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed did not promote the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
  • Leaders could not demonstrate they had the capacity and skills to deliver high quality sustainable care.
  • The overall governance arrangements were inadequate.
  • Staff did not always work effectively together and with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice did not have a comprehensive programme of quality improvement activity.
  • Patients’ needs were not assessed, and care and treatment was not delivered in line with current legislation.
  • There were gaps in systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety.

We found four breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Ensure all premises and equipment used by the service provider is fit for use.
  • Ensure that any complaint received is investigated and any proportionate action is taken in response to any failure identified by the complaint or investigation.
  • Ensure there is an effective system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints be patients and other persons in relation to the carrying on of the regulated activity.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The provider should:

  • Take steps to improve safe levels of staffing.
  • In response to patient feedback, improve access for patients.
  • Take action to improve staff wellbeing.

I am, therefore, placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement, we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration. Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

7 February 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Park House Medical Centre on 7 February 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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 have rated this practice as good overall but effective was rated as requires improvement. This was because we rated two population groups as requires improvement: people with long-term conditions and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:

  • Some outcomes were below CCG and national averages for people with long term conditions and people with mental health.

The overall rating for this practice was Good. However, the population groups were rated as requires improvement because some outcomes were below CCG and national averages for people with long term conditions and people with mental health.

We rated the practice as good for providing safe, caring, responsive and well-led services because:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure evidence of compliance for site-related issues is readily available from the contractor or landlord.
  • Ensure all Patient Group Directions are appropriately completed.
  • Improve outcomes for people with long term conditions and mental health in line with CCG and national averages.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

13 January 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We inspected this practice on 13 January 2015 as part of our new comprehensive inspection programme. This is the first time we have inspected this practice.

The overall rating for this service is good. We found the practice to be good in the safe, effective, caring responsive and well led domains. We found the practice provided good care to people with long term conditions, families, children and young people and people in vulnerable circumstances, older people, working age people and people experiencing poor mental health.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Patients told us they were satisfied with the appointments system and told they could see a GP when they needed to.
  • Patients were kept safe from the risk and spread of infection as the provider had carried out audits and acted on their findings
  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect and spoken to in a friendly manner by all staff
  • Systems were in place to keep patients safe by assessing risk and taking steps to reduce this. We saw evidence of learning from previous incidents.
  • Patients, their relatives and carers were involved in all aspects of treatment and their opinions were listened to and acted upon.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice