The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Campus View Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

University Medical Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU (01509) 222061

Provided and run by:
Campus View Medical Centre

All Inspections

5 July 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Campus View Medical Centre on 5 July 2023.

Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

The ratings for each key question:

Safe – Good

Effective – Requires improvement.

Caring - Good.

Responsive - Good.

Well-led – Good.

How we carried out the inspection

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:

  • Conducting staff interviews in person and on the phone
  • 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 Good overall

We found that:

  • The service had good systems to ensure patients received safe and mainly effective care and treatment.
  • There was an effective system to identify and safeguard people from abuse. Clinical staff received regular updates, training and took steps to ensure they were familiar with the most recent clinical guidelines.
  • We observed staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • The practice team demonstrated a commitment to learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

However we also found that:

  • The practice was not routinely using data to drive the effectiveness of national screening programmes. Cervical screening uptake was well below national expected levels. A plan to improve the uptake of cervical screening was in place.
  • The practice did not have a system for obtaining patient views as there was no active patient participation group. This was in the planning stage but had not yet been implemented.

In response to these findings the provider SHOULD:

  • Improve the uptake in national programmes, specifically cervical screening.
  • Continue to develop and embed the patient participation group.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

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

2 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Vaghela &Dr Gill on 2 November 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 been trained to provide them with 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.
  • 95% of the practice’s patients were students (including approximately two thousand international students). Many were aged 25 and under and few national GP survey forms were completed. The practice therefore conducted its own patient survey annually to obtain patient feedback and improve patient care. The responses were generally positive.
  • The practice’s website was mobile phone friendly and it planned to continually improve this to encourage use of on-line services.
  • 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.
  • Urgent appointments were made available for vulnerable patients and unwell children even where the sessions were fully booked.
  • The practice had adequate facilities and equipment.
  • 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice