The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

North Street Medical Care

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

274 North Street, Romford, Essex, RM1 4QJ (01708) 629733

Provided and run by:
North Street Medical Care

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about North Street Medical Care 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 North Street Medical Care, you can give feedback on this service.

23 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused assessment of the key question responsive at North Street Medical Care on 23 November 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as good and the key question for providing a responsive service is n ow rated requires improvement.

Safe - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection.

Effective - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection.

Caring - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection.

Responsive – Requires Improvement.

Well-led - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection.

Following our previous inspection in March 2019 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 North Street Meical Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we carried out this inspection.

We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet peoples demands for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers.

We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know staff are carrying this out whilst the demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. However, this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people.

Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. These assessments of the responsive key question include looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

How we carried out the inspection/review

This assessment was carried out remotely. It did not include a site visit.

The process included:

• Conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing.

• Reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources

• Requesting evidence from the provider.

• Reviewing data, we hold about the provider.

• Seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders

Our findings

We based our judgement of the responsive key question on a combination of:

• what we found when we met with the provider

• information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and

• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • During the assessment process, the provider highlighted the actions they have taken to make improvements to the responsiveness of the service for their patient population.
  • However, the GP survey patient over the last two to three years had remained in parts below the national average. For example, the percentage of respondents to the survey who responded positively to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone had remained below the national average since 2019.
  • In addition, the percentage of respondents to the survey who were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their GP practice appointment times had remained below the national average since 2019.

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

  • Continue to improve patient access.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

7 December 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced inspection at North Street Medical Care on 7 December 2021. This inspection was focused on the management of access to appointments.

Overall, the practice remains rated as Good.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for North Street Medical Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection.

This inspection was undertaken in response to data we reviewed which suggested potential issues with access to appointments.

How we carried out the inspection

The inspection was led by a CQC lead inspector who spoke with staff on site and reviewed information.

Interviews were carried out with the practice manager and reception manager.

We found that:

  • The practice staff monitored, reviewed and responded to any identified concerns regarding of the ease of patients access to appointments.
  • The practice offered a range of appointment types.
  • There were systems in place to support people who faced communication barriers to access treatment.
  • Patients with most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised.

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

28 January to 28 January 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at North Street Medical Care on 28 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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 and good for all population groups.

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.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. 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:

  • Ensure premises risk assessment and the outstanding actions from the most recent fire risk assessment are completed.
  • Review the processes for ensuring security of prescription forms.
  • Continue to monitor and address patient concerns about telephone access and making appointments.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

17 March 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at North Street Medical Care on 17 March 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing well-led, effective, caring, safe and responsive services. It was also good for providing services for older people, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people living in vulnerable circumstances, people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) and for people with long term conditions.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to recruitment checks.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the provider should:

  • Undertake a risk assessment for legionella (a bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings).
  • Review its systems so that learning from significant events is also shared with non clinical staff.
  • Consider introducing equality diversity and human rights training for staff.
  • Continue to work with its Patient Participation Group to monitor and improve telephone access as necessary.
  • Introduce a systematic programme of clinical audit to drive improvements in patient outcomes.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice