You are here

Gladstone Medical Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 January 2020

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Gladstone Medical Centre on 20 November 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection, we followed up on breaches of regulations identified at a previous inspection on 3 October 2018. Previous reports on this practice can be found on our website at: https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-646669600.

At this inspection, we found that the practice had demonstrated improvements in most areas.

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, with the exception of

working age people (including those recently retired and students) which is rated as requires improvement.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided.
  • The practice’s uptake of the national screening programme for cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening and childhood immunisations rates were below the national averages.
  • The practice did not have any formal monitoring system in place to assure themselves that blank prescription forms for use in printers were recorded correctly, and records were maintained as intended in line with national guidance.
  • 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. Feedback from most patients reflected that they were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

We rated all population groups as good for providing responsive services. We rated all population groups as good for providing effective services, with the exception of working age people (including those recently retired and students) which are rated as requires improvement, because of low cervical screening rates.

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

  • Continue to encourage and monitor the childhood immunisation, cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening uptake.
  • Promote the awareness of the documented fire evacuation plan.
  • Review the governance arrangements to ensure effective monitoring of blank prescription forms in line with national guidance.
  • Continue to review and monitor the exception reporting for diabetes related indicators.
  • Consider to carry out formal analysis of internal surveys carried out by the practice and develop an action plan if required.

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

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Effective

Good

Caring

Good

Responsive

Good

Well-led

Good
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Families, children and young people

Good

Older people

Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Requires improvement

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good