The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The University Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Giles Lane, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7PB (01227) 469333

Provided and run by:
The University Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The University 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 The University Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

19 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The University Medical Centre on 19 October 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.

24 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at University Medical Centre on 24 October 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.
  • The practice was the lead primary care service provider of mental health services for four local clinical commissioning groups. As a consequence the practice offered a range of mental health services to its patients and patients not registered at the practice, including psychological therapies and an eating disorder service.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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:

  • Consider a process to review and analyse significant events to identify any trends and maximise learning.
  • The practice should improve systems for the recording and management of prescription pads.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice