• Doctor
  • GP practice

City Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2nd Floor, Boots, 32 Market Street, Manchester, M1 1PL (0161) 839 6227

Provided and run by:
GoToDoc Limited

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 City Health 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 City Health Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

02 August 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at City Health Centre on 1st & 2nd August 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

Why we carried out this inspection

The inspection was carried out following changes to the practice registration.

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection to check the provider was complying with the regulations under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. We inspected five key questions to determine if the service is safe, effective, caring, responsive and 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:

  • Using questionnaires sent to staff prior to the on-site visit;
  • Speaking to staff in person;
  • 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 shorter 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 found that:

We rated the practice as good for providing safe services because:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective services because:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.

We rated the practice as good for providing caring services because:

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care

We rated the practice as good for providing responsive services because:

  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.

We rated the practice as good for providing well led services because:

  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

We saw the following outstanding practice:

The practice had designed and was delivering two government schemes . The Afghan Relocation Assisted Programme (ARAP) and the Asylum Seekers Contingency (ASC) both supported families placed in temporary accommodation in the City centre. service did not differentiate between permanent and temporary/transient patients

The Afghan Relocation Assisted Programme (ARAP) and Asylum Seekers Contingency (ASC) provide a full range of primary examinations, screening for families within their hotel rooms, which to date has seen:

  • 880 patients screened over the last six months
  • 98% uptake rate for cervical screening
  • 71 positive for an infectious virus patients were referred to the relevant secondary care specialist by an agreed pathway of care with the trust
  • All patients received pre and post screening counselling offered in the patient’s first language including Dari, Fassi and Pashtu resulting in an 98% uptake of care.
  • Positive outcomes included changes to NICE guidance to reduce radiological Xray exposure to young children.
  • The provider had been nominated for three collaborative Heath Service Journal (HSJ) awards 2022, for their service delivery of these unique programmes.

The provider should:

  • Monitor the health and safety arrangements between the landlord for the location, with all required information clearly documented and auditable within the practice.
  • Review and complete actions within the infection control annual statement in a timely manner.
  • Review the systems around significant event identification to ensure all appropriate clinical events are captured and documented.
  • Continue to monitor and review the uptake of childhood immunisations, cervical and screening for the practice to help aim towards the national criteria targets.