• Doctor
  • GP practice

Drs Joseph Borg-Costanzi/Ian Gilani/Brian Rhodes Also known as Monton Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Monton Medical Centre, Canal Side, Monton Green, Eccles, Manchester, Greater Manchester, M30 8AR 0844 815 1147

Provided and run by:
Drs Joseph Borg-Costanzi/Ian Gilani/Brian Rhodes

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Drs Joseph Borg-Costanzi/Ian Gilani/Brian Rhodes 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 Drs Joseph Borg-Costanzi/Ian Gilani/Brian Rhodes, you can give feedback on this service.

25 October 2022

During a routine inspection

This inspection of 25 October 2022 was a full comprehensive inspection. All key questions were inspected. We have rated the practice good overall with the following ratings for individual key questions, reflecting the significant improvements that had been made:

Safe – Good

Effective – Good

Caring - Good

Responsive – Good

Well-led – Good

We previously inspected Monton Medical Centre, Canal Side, Monton Green, Eccles, Manchester, M30 8AR on 26 April 2022. This was a full comprehensive inspection following ongoing monitoring of potential risk. At that time the practice was given an overall rating of inadequate with the following key question ratings:

Safe - Inadequate

Effective – Requires Improvement

Caring - Good

Responsive – Requires Improvement

Well-led - Inadequate

After the inspection on 26 April 2022 a warning notice was issued for a breach of regulation 12 (safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activity) Regulations 2014. We also issued requirement notices were issued for breaches of regulations 16 (receiving and acting on complaints), 17 (good governance), 18 (staffing) and 19 (fit and proper persons employed) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activity) Regulations 2014.

We carried out a further inspection at Monton Medical Centre on 4 August 2022, to check progress against the requirements of the warning notice issued on 11 May 2022. We found the practice had taken positive action to address the issues raised in the warning notice. No ratings were awarded as part of that inspection.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Drs Joseph Borg-Costanzi/Ian Gilani/Brian Rhodes on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection of all five key questions. We also followed up on the breaches of regulations we found in our previous inspection.

How we carried out the inspection/review

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 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 rated this practice as good overall

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-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to improve how patients get through to someone at the practice on the phone.
  • Follow their complaints policy when responding to complaints.
  • Continue to make improvements to cervical cancer screening rates.

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

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the improvements made to the quality of care provided by this service.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

4 August 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected Monton Medical Centre, Canal Side, Monton Green, Eccles, Manchester, M30 8AR on 26 April 2022. This was a full comprehensive inspection following ongoing monitoring of potential risk. The practice was given an overall rating of inadequate with the following key question ratings:

Safe - Inadequate

Effective – Requires Improvement

Caring - Good

Responsive – Requires Improvement

Well-led - Inadequate

After the inspection on 26 April 2022 requirement notices were issued for breaches of Regulations 16 (receiving and acting on complaints), Regulation 17 (good governance), Regulation 18 (staffing) and Regulation 19 (fit and proper persons employed) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activity) Regulations 2014. A warning notice was issued for a breach of Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activity) Regulations 2014.

This inspection, carried out on 4 August 2022, was to check progress against the requirements of the warning notice issued on 11 May 2022.

We found:

  • Staff had the information they needed to deliver safe care and treatment.
  • The practice had systems for the appropriate and safe use of medicines, including medicines optimisation.
  • The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong.

The rating of inadequate awarded to the practice following our full comprehensive inspection on 26 April 2022 remains unchanged. A further full inspection of the service will take place within six months of the original report being published and their rating revised if appropriate.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our report 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

26 April 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Drs Joseph Borg-Costanzi/Ian Gilani/Brian Rhodes also known as Monton Medical Centre on 26 April 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as inadequate.

Safe - Inadequate

Effective – Requires Improvement

Caring - Good

Responsive – Requires Improvement

Well-led - Inadequate

Following our previous inspection on 7 April 2016 the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Drs Joseph Borg-Costanzi/Ian Gilani/Brian Rhodes on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection of all five key questions due to ongoing monitoring of potential risk.

How we carried out the inspection/review

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A 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 rated this practice as Inadequate overall

Following this inspection, we have rated the practice inadequate for providing safe services. We identified the following areas of concern:

  • Recruitment checks were not carried out in accordance with regulations.
  • Evidence of staff vaccination was not maintained in line with current Public Health England (PHE) guidance.
  • There was no system for summarising of new patient notes.
  • The practice did not have a system to monitor and record use of prescription stationery.
  • Staff using Patient Specific Directions (PSDs) did not have the appropriate authorisations to administer medicines.
  • There was no effective system for recording and acting on significant events.
  • There was no effective process for managing Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) alerts.

Following this inspection, we have rated the practice requires improvement for providing effective services. We identified the following areas of concern:

  • The practice did not have a programme of learning and development.
  • There was limited monitoring of the outcomes of care and treatment.

We rated the provider as good for providing caring services.

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.

Following this inspection, we have rated the practice requires improvement for providing responsive services. We identified the following areas of concern:

  • People were not always able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Complaints were not investigated and there was no evidence that necessary and proportionate action was taken, or learning had taken place or used to improve the quality of care.

Following this inspection, we have rated the practice inadequate for providing well-led services. Concerns included:

  • There was not always effective leadership at all levels, for this reason, the practice had plans to recruit to leadership positions.
  • The practice had a clear vision and strategy to provide high quality sustainable care, but it was not clear how this was monitored.
  • The overall governance arrangements were ineffective.
  • The practice did not have clear and effective processes for managing risks, issues and performance.
  • The practice did not always have systems in place to continue to deliver services, respond to risk and meet patients’ needs during the pandemic.
  • The practice did not always act on appropriate and accurate information.
  • The practice did not involve the public and external partners to sustain high quality and sustainable care.
  • There was little evidence of systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation.

We found five breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • 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 that there is an effective system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints by 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.
  • Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal necessary to enable them to carry out their duties.
  • Ensure recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed.

We also found that the provider should:

  • Consider carrying out its own patient survey/patient feedback exercises.

I am 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 Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

07 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Monton Medical Practice on 07 April 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • 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 well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • 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.
  • Some patients expressed concerns over pre-booking appointments with a named GP and also difficulty in getting through to reception using the telephone but we did observe that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments 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 should make improvement are:

  • Ensure computers are locked at all times when left unattended.

  • Review the way that the Patient Specific Direction is signed by the GP.

  • Perform a risk assessment in relation to Legionella monitoring.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice