The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Modality Partnership Hull

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

61 Alexandra Road, Hull, North Humberside, HU5 2NT (01482) 344100

Provided and run by:
Modality Partnership

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Modality Partnership Hull 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 Modality Partnership Hull, you can give feedback on this service.

29 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a targeted announced assessment of Modality Partnership Hull in relation to the responsive key question. This assessment was carried out on 29 November 2023 without a site visit. Overall, the practice is rated as Good. We rated the key question of responsive as requires improvement.

Safe - Good

Effective – Good

Caring - Good

Responsive – requires improvement

Well-led – Good

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a targeted assessment of the key question of responsive to understand how practices are working to try and meet the 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 colleagues are doing this while demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. In 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

This inspection was carried remotely.

This included:

  • Conducting an interview with the provider and staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • Reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources.
  • Seeking data we hold about the service.
  • Seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders.

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 found that:

  • Patients were not satisfied with the access to appointments offered by the practice. This was reflected in the National GP survey.
  • The practice had a number of initiatives and programmes running to improve the way patients contacted the practice and had implemented systems for improving their overall experience.
  • The practice understood the needs of its local population.
  • The practice had an active and effective patient participation group (PPG).
  • The practice dealt with complaints in a timely manner and learned from them.
  • During the assessment process, the provider highlighted the efforts they are making or are planning to make to improve the responsiveness of the service for their patient population. The effect of these efforts were starting to show results in patient feedback.

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

  • Continue to review and improve patient satisfaction around access to the service.

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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

3-4 March 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Modality Partnership Hull on 1-4 March 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

The ratings for each key question are:

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive – Good

Well-led - Good

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Modality Partnership Hull on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. However, this was a first inspection.

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection due to the provider merging the service with four other locations. They had not been inspected previously.

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 using video conferencing
  • 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.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • 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:

  • Continue to monitor and take action to improve patient access systems.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The provider employed a clinical lead pharmacist who was responsible for continuous monitoring of medicines and prescribing. During the inspection we saw that an electronic prescribing monitoring dashboard was in place to inform the senior leadership team across the organisation. We saw that low-level incidents were monitored to ensure that they were reduced into less risk status. We also saw that monitoring of repeat prescribing had identified 1139 patients that had not requested a repeat prescription in the last six months. The provider told us that all these patients had been contacted regarding their medicine. For example, a patient had stopped taking their medication due a service being stopped. However, the pharmacy team had identified a high blood sugar level for the patient and it assisted them in controlling this to a more manageable level.
  • The practice assessed and monitored the physical health of people with mental illness, severe mental illness, and personality disorder. A review of the practice protocols including an outbound telephone call with an invitation to the patient was provided and the options to discuss the review with a member of the social prescribing team in advance of the appointment. This ensured that patients felt safe and supported. For example, patients were offered extended appointments and sessions that were split into manageable sections to allow them time to build trust within the practice rather than not attending their appointment.
  • The practice could demonstrate how they identified patients with commonly undiagnosed conditions, for example diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), atrial fibrillation and hypertension. For example, the practice had invested in electronic medical devices i.e. handheld devices to check abnormal heart rhythms. Patients were able to monitor their own heart rhythm with the support of clinicians. This had led to a reduction in the use of some medicines, we found an example of one patient who no longer needed heart medicine at all.

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