• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Mirza and Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Pikes Lane Centre, Deane Road, Bolton, Lancashire, BL3 5HP (01204) 463636

Provided and run by:
Dr Mirza and Partners

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Mirza and Partners 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 Dr Mirza and Partners, you can give feedback on this service.

7 June 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Dr Mirza and Partners on 7 June 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

The ratings for each key question are

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring – Good (rating awarded at last inspection January 2017)

Responsive – Good (rating awarded at last inspection January 2017)

Well-led - Good

The provider was last inspected January 2017 and was rated Good overall and in all of the key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Mirza and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated good and outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach. This included focusing on the key questions safe, effective and well led. Caring and responsive were not inspected.

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
  • 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 short 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.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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:

  • Involve all staff members in meetings when discussing SEAs and learning outcomes and when developing practice services and the vision and values.
  • Ensure all staff have completed all required training and training undertaken outside of the practice is recorded.
  • Ensure all staff vaccination status is obtained on recruitment and for those staff already employed.

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

13 December 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This is a focused desk top review of evidence supplied by Dr Counsell & Partners for one area within the key question safe. We found the practice to be good in providing safe services. Overall the practice is rated as good.

The practice was previously inspected on 10 November 2015. The inspection was a comprehensive inspection under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. At that inspection the practice was rated good overall. However, within the key question safe, one area was identified as requiring improvement because the practice was not meeting the legislation at that time.

Regulation 19 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Fit and proper persons employed:

  • The provider did not carry out a risk assessment in relation to the need to (or not to) conduct DBS checks on non clinical staff. The provider did not assess the different responsibilities and activities of staff to determine if they were eligible for a DBS check. Where the decision is made not to carry out a DBS check on staff, the provider should be able to give a clear rationale as to why.

The practice has submitted to CQC, a range of documents which demonstrate they are now meeting the requirements of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Greenhalgh and partners on 10 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good. Specifically, we found the practice to require improvement for providing safe services and good for providing effective, responsive, caring and well led services.

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.
  • 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 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.

The area where the provider must make improvements is:

The provider must assess the different responsibilities and activities of staff to determine if they are eligible for a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. Where the decision has been made not to carry out a DBS check on staff, the practice should be able to give a clear rationale as to why.

In addition the provider should:

Take action to improve the incident management system to ensure learning and actions identified from significant incidents are embedded and sustained.

Take action to improve the systems relating to the security and disposal of controlled medicines.

Take action to improve staff training and appraisal systems to ensure all staff are effectively supported in these areas.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 June 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection we were only able to speak to two patients. For some of the patients attending the morning surgery English was not their first language or for cultural reasons they were not happy to talk to us. The patients we spoke with spoke positively about the practice and commented that they were happy with the care they received. Comments included 'this is a good practice', 'wouldn't want to change my doctor', 'they talk everything through with you ok '

We saw that the practice rooms were on the ground floor with adequate access for people with limited mobility. The practice was clean with ample seating for patients. The practice provided patients with information about the services available through leaflets available in the waiting area.The practice leaflet provided patents with information about how to raise a concern or complaint.

The practice had electronic patient records in place to record the contact patients had with the service.Consent was recorded in the electronic notes when any minor surgical procedure had been carried out.

Procedures where in place documenting communication processes and information exchange with other healthcare professionals and services. This meant that the care of the people who use the service was coordinated.The practice had an up to date recruitment policy in place. The practice had a range of policies and procedures in place which supported the safe running of the service.