• Doctor
  • GP practice

Castle Mead Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

33 Hill Street, Hinckley, Leicestershire, LE10 1DS (01455) 637659

Provided and run by:
Castle Mead 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 Castle Mead 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 Castle Mead Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

14 March 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Castle Mead Medical Centre on 14 March 2020. 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.

19 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Castle Mead Medical Centre on 19 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.
  • 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.
  • Urgent appointments and telephone consultations were available especially for unwell children.
  • 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.
  • The practice had a dispensary at its branch surgery in Stoke Golding which was managed according to the Dispensing Services Quality Scheme (DSQS)

The practice should consider whether a risk assessment is necessary regarding the use of volunteer members of the PPG delivering medicines to patients in rural areas and whether they need to be DBS checked as some of the patients may be vulnerable.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice