The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Heston Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Heston Health Clinic, Cranford Lane, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW5 9ER (020) 8630 3414

Provided and run by:
Hounslow 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 Heston Practice 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 Heston Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

22, 23 and 24 November 2021

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Heston Practice on 22, 23 and 24 November 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Set out the ratings for each key question

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 30 August 2019 the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions but requires improvement for providing effective services without a regulatory breach:

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a comprehensive inspection. At this inspection we covered all key questions:

  • Are services safe?
  • Are services effective?
  • Are services caring?
  • Are services responsive?
  • Are services well-led?

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. 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.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.

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

  • Improve the monitoring of patients’ medicines, in particular medicines prescribed to treat thyroid hormone deficiency.
  • Continue to monitor, encourage and improve cervical and bowel cancer screening and childhood immunisation uptake.
  • Improve record keeping of staff files.
  • Review the governance arrangements to ensure effective monitoring of blank prescription forms and repeat prescription process.
  • Take necessary steps to ensure staff are clear about their responsibilities to report cases of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

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

30 August 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Heston Practice on 30 August 2019 as part of our inspection programme. This practice has been managed by the current provider on a temporary basis since 1 May 2019.

We previously inspected Heston Practice on 6 December 2018 when it was run by a different provider. At that inspection, we rated the service as inadequate for safe, effective, responsive and well-led care. We rated the service as requires improvement for being caring. The service was rated as inadequate for all population groups. The service was placed into special measures for six months from 19 February 2019.

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
  • our inspection included visits to both the main and branch surgery sites.

We have rated this practice as good overall. We have rated it as good for all population groups except for the working age people; and the f amilies, children and young people  population groups which we rated as requires improvement.

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-centred care.

We rated the working age people; and, the families, children and young people population groups as requires improvement because the cervical screening and childhood immunisation uptake rates were not yet in line with the relevant national targets.

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

  • Proactively work with the landlord to ensure that all environmental risks are being effectively managed.
  • Monitor the effectiveness of actions to increase uptake of cervical screening.
  • Continue efforts to increase the uptake of childhood immunisations.
  • Set up a functioning website for patients with information about available services.

The provider had taken over the service on a temporary basis from 1 May 2019. Since taking over, it had reviewed the issues raised at the last inspection. It had put in place systems to manage identified risks and provide care in line with national and local guidelines. At the time of our inspection, there were now clear governance structures including visible management arrangements at both the surgery and branch level. Staff and patients were engaged in practice development and told us that the service had improved.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by this service.

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