The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

St Albans Medical Group

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Felling Health Centre, Stephenson Terrace, Felling, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, NE10 9QG (0191) 469 2316

Provided and run by:
St Albans Medical Group

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

27 September 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about St Albans Medical Group on 27 September 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.

15 February 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This announced comprehensive inspection was carried out on the 15 February 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified at our previous inspection on 1 March 2016. Overall the practice is now rated as good.

On 1 March 2016 we carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Albans Medical Group. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement, having being judged as requires improvement for Safe and Well Led services. The full comprehensive report on the March 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for St Albans Medical Group on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

After the comprehensive inspection the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the following legal requirements set out in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008:

  • Regulation 12 Health & Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment.

At our inspection of 15 February 2017 we found that:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and report incidents and near misses; improvements had been made to the significant event reporting process.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Outcomes for patients who use services were good.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • Staff were consistent and proactive in supporting patients to live healthier lives through a targeted approach to health promotion. Information was provided to patients to help them understand the care and treatment available.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice had a system in place for handling complaints and concerns and responded quickly to any complaints.
  • The practice had reviewed access to appointments at the surgery, which included the introduction of telephone triage, extended access had been provided every weekday morning.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a leadership structure in place and staff felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which they acted on.
  • The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour regulation.

We saw one area of outstanding practice which was:

  • The community linking project at the practice enabled the GPs and nurses to refer patients to a range of local, non-clinical services which lead to positive health and well-being outcomes. The project is the only one in the clinical commisioning group area that has been classified as Gold Standard by NHS England, it had been set up by the practice. It had been awarded a NHS Alliance Trojan Mouse Award from the Kings Fund, for introducing changes in practice which leads to positive change in the life of a person or community. An evaluation of the project for the last six months of 2016 showed that 107 patients were referred from the practice and 72 were referred to other services which included, for example, citizen’s advice bureau, social services and voluntary services.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Include information in response to complaints and for the practice complaint information leaflet to explain the process of taking the complaint further such as to NHS England or The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

  • Have a system in place to ensure the shared Health Centre defibrillator is being checked correctly by NHS properties staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

1 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Albans Medical Group on 1 March 2016. Overall, we rated the practice as requires improvement.

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

  • Although there was an effective system in place for recording significant events, we were not assured that non-clinical staff were contributing to the reporting process.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • The practice had identified mandatory training for staff as an area for improvement and put in place plans to address this.
  • A number of patients told us the community-linking project had a very positive impact on their lives, health and wellbeing. This was a project delivered jointly by the practice and a third sector organisation, focused on social prescribing. They spoke positively of the support they had received and what this meant for them personally, including help to access resources, increased social inclusion and support with obtaining work.
  • 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.
  • The results of the national GP patient survey with how satisfied patients were with how they could access care and treatment was broadly in line with national and local clinical commissioning group averages. However, patients told us they had to wait a long time to get an appointment.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • We found the practice had a vision to deliver a comprehensive range of general medical services to meet the needs of their practice population. They had a commitment to delivering high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients. The short-term strategy for the practice included completing a back to basics review of the policies, procedures and assurance systems, which supported the way the practice worked. Following this, they planned to develop a more detailed practice business plan.
  • Following an internal investigation, the practice had identified concerns. The practice had started to put in place a number of assurance systems to address these concerns.
  • Staff felt supported by the GP partners. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. They planned to review the effectiveness of the patient participation group as part of the review of governance and instigate new arrangements that better supported the practice to improve.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • There was evidence patients were at risk of harm because some systems and processes were not effective. For example, although the practice was taking action to improve their infection control procedures, there were some gaps in process and procedures. The arrangements to safely store temperature sensitive medicines did not reflect the current guidance. The practice had insufficient arrangements in place to ensure the health and safety of patients, staff and visitors to the practice. There was no evidence of regular reviews or plans to reduce any identified risks.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Continue to review and improve the infection control arrangements within the practice to reflect current guidance and best practice.
  • Store temperature sensitive medicines, such as vaccines, within validated vaccine refrigerators. Make sure checks and calibration processes are in place to provide assurance these medicines are stored at appropriate and consistent temperatures.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to progress with the review of governance arrangements and develop the assurance processes associated with this. Where gaps are identified, develop and implement appropriate policies and procedures.
  • Develop a business plan to support the practice in delivering high quality care and promoting good outcomes for patients.
  • Continue to review, document and improve the arrangements in place to ensure the health and safety of patients, staff and visitors to the practice.
  • Ensure records for staff include all the required information, such as proof of identity; a recent photograph of the staff member; and, evidence of their full employment history, including gaps and reasons for leaving.
  • Continue to progress with the programme of mandatory training to ensure staff are supported to gain the relevant skills, knowledge and experience.
  • Ensure non-clinical staff are supported to contribute to the significant event reporting process.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

1 October 2013

During a routine inspection

The patients we spoke with were satisfied staff listened to their views, showed them respect and involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. We found patients' privacy was respected and promoted. One patient told us they thought 'very highly' of the practice and had never had cause to complain. They also said appointments were 'always available, both routine and urgent', and staff were 'very courteous and efficient'. Another patient told us they had never had a problem with booking an appointment and the staff knew them well and always fitted them in. They also said the doctor always gave them plenty of time to discuss their problems. There were appropriate systems and processes to protect vulnerable patients against harm and prevent the spread of infection. Effective recruitment procedures were in place.