The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Adelaide Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Adelaide Medical Centre, Adelaide Road, Andover, Hampshire, SP10 1HA (01264) 351144

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

NA

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced desk-top review at Adelaide Medical Centre on 15 June 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 27 February 2020, the practice was rated Good overall. However, we rated Well led as Requires Improvement. During this desk top review, we looked at the areas identified as requiring improvement. The previous ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive remain unchanged.

We found that the practice had made the required improvements to governance systems, as detailed below and we were therefore able to improve the rating of Well led from Requires Improvement to Good.

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

Why we carried out this review

This review was a focused follow-up of the practice without undertaking a site visit. We focussed only the key question Well led. We found the previously identified breach of Regulations 17 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) 2014 Good governance had been complied with. This meant we were able to re-rate Well led from Requires Improvement to Good.

Ratings for the other four key questions were carried forward from the previous inspection.

How we carried out the review

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. For this inspection we decided we did not need to visit the location to review the evidence, but we could undertake a desk-top review of evidence and conduct interviews using video conferencing.

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 had changed significantly since our previous inspection, led by a new partnership team and supported by a range of new staff.
  • The practice had implemented improvements in governance arrangements since our last inspection and had addressed the issues we had raised. This included in the management of emergency medicines, prescription stationery and recruitment risk assessments.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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

  • Continue to improve the uptake of cervical screening.

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

27 Feb 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Adelaide Medical Centre on 27 February 2020 following our annual regulatory review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Are the services provided at this location effective?
  • Are the services provided at this location caring?
  • Are the services provided at this location well-led?

The practice’s annual regulatory review did not indicate that the quality of care had potentially changed in relation to provision of Safe and Responsive services. As a result, the ratings of ‘good’ from the practice’s previous comprehensive inspection from 2016 still stand in those key questions.

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 but Requires Improvement for providing well-led services. We have rated this practice as Good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice had increased its cervical screening uptake in the previous 12 months but remained below the national target of 80% uptake.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Feedback from patients was positive about the way staff treated them.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care but it had not considered and mitigated the risks surrounding some of its systems and processes. For example, there was no formal process relating to the monitoring of blank prescription stationery, or any associated risk assessments relating to Disclosure and Barring Service checks for non-clinical staff.
  • The practice did not have full oversight of GP training records. We found GPs were often completing their training via a different training provider to the rest of the practice.
  • Quality improvement activities helped to direct and drive improvement at the practice.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to improve uptake for cervical screening to ensure the practice’s meets the national target of 80%.
  • Review how the practice is assured that all staff, including GPs, are in line with practice’s training requirements.
  • Review guidance on when to notify CQC regarding changes at the practice, including any absences of accountable staff members in a timely manner.

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

19 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Adelaide Medical Centre, Adelaide Road, Andover, Hampshire, SP10 1HA on 19 July 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.
  • 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:

Review arrangements for identifying patients who are carers and demonstrate how the practice supports them.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

12 May 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our previous inspection in December 2013 we found the provider was not ensuring people's safety and welfare because regular checks of emergency medical equipment had not taken place. We also found the provider did not have effective measures in place to ensure the safe storage of medicines. The provider had also not carried out clinical audits.

The provider told us they would make improvements.

During this inspection, we found the provider had made all the improvements they said they would. For example, we saw records of regular checks of emergency equipment had been carried out.

The provider had introduced a policy for the safe storage and return of medicines. The staff we spoke with were aware of the policy that had been introduced. We found the fridges and cupboards that stored medicines were locked when not in use and there was a secure key holder to hold the keys. This meant that access was restricted to those authorised and prevented the loss of keys.

The provider had carried out clinical audits, reported and investigated any significant events and written a business continuity plan. This plan would ensure continued running of the service in the event of a major incident.

2 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. People told us that the doctors took time to explain things to them. One person told us the doctor had used a model to support their understanding of the way their illness affected them.

We saw there were a variety of information leaflets available to people both in the reception and around the practice. One member of staff told us; "I have a good relationship with most patients, patient care is of utmost importance." One patient told us; "I know all the staff, they always make you feel very welcome. I have absolutely no concerns about the practice at all. It is clean, tidy and everyone is very friendly".

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies however we found that emergency equipment was not always checked. We looked at the practice defibrillator that formed part of the emergency equipment and found that the automated external defibrillator (AED) pads had expired in September 2013. For an AED to provide the right kind of therapy to a sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) victim, the AED pads must make proper contact with the patient's skin.

We saw there were systems in place to ensure that regularly used vaccines were stored in one of two lockable fridges at the correct temperature. However we only saw evidence that demonstrated that temperatures were recorded daily for one of the fridges. The practice manager assured us that medications were not kept in GP consultation rooms, however in three of the five rooms we checked we found packets of returned medicine. These packets of returned medications were found in unlocked cupboards in unlocked consulting rooms.

We spoke with seven patients during our visit. They were very happy with the care and services provided. One patient told us: 'I've got no issues. If I felt there was room for improvement I'd go somewhere else'.

We asked the practice manager how the practice assessed and monitored the quality of its services. There was no evidence of any monitoring being carried out. The practice manager told us that other than participating in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) they did not assess and monitor the quality of the service. The practice manager told us that clinical audits, assessments or monitoring had not been carried out to identify or manage risk within the practice for staff or equipment. There was no risk assessment to safeguard the health and safety of patient's.