We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hartshill 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 Hartshill Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
This practice is rated as Good overall. We previously inspected this practice on 24 November 2014 and rated it Good overall.
The key questions are rated as:
Are services safe? – Good
Are services effective? – Good
Are services caring? – Good
Are services responsive? – Good
Are services well-led? - Good
As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:
Older People – Good
People with long-term conditions – Good
Families, children and young people – Good
Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good
People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good
People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good
We carried out an announced comprehensive at Hartshill Medical Centre on 28 November 2017 as part of our inspection programme.
At this inspection we found:
The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes. However, a risk assessment to reflect guidance from The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) in relation to the storage or spillage of mercury had not been completed.
The practice had clear systems to keep patients safe and safeguarded from the risk of abuse.
The practice had developed effective ways of reducing patient A&E attendance. All patients that attended A&E were reviewed at a weekly clinical meeting.
The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
The practice had signed up to the local authority’s safer places scheme to work as part of a network of organisations to provide assistance and support to vulnerable people over 14 years if they felt anxious or scared whilst out in the community.
The practice had responded to the issues patients experienced when trying to access appointments by recruiting an additional GP partner and planned to purchase a new telephone system.
There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. Two of the GP partners were educational tutors at the local university. We saw that the knowledge and experiences they gained from these roles were embedded in the practice’s culture of continuous improvement.
There was one area of outstanding practice:
The practice provided two hours a week of dedicated appointments for the A&E department to redirect patients to the practice if they attended A&E inappropriately. Data for 2015/16 and 2016/17 showed a fall from 14.7% to 11.9% of inappropriate A&E attendances for patients registered with the practice.
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
Update their recruitment policy to include reference to accounting for gaps in employment history and checking that professional registrations for clinical staff are in date.
Complete a risk assessment to reflect guidance from The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) in relation to the storage or spillage of mercury.
Continue to seek out ways to improve the identification of carers registered with the practice.
Review the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 to support their understanding of incidents that are notifiable to the Care Quality Commission.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We inspected this service on 24 November 2014 as part of our new comprehensive inspection programme.
The overall rating for this practice is good. We found the practice to be good in all five of the domains. We found the practice provided good care to older people, people with long term conditions, people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, families, children and young people, working age people and people experiencing poor mental health.
Our key findings were as follows:
We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:
However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
The provider should:
Chief Inspector of General Practice