The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Highgate Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

St Patricks Community Health Centre, Highgate Street, Birmingham, West Midlands, B12 0YA

Provided and run by:
Dr Jui Sharad Pandit

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Highgate 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 Highgate Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

16 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Highgate Medical Centre on 16 October 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We carried out an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This inspection focused on the following key questions:

  • Are services at this location effective?
  • Are services at this location caring?
  • Are services at this location responsive?
  • Are services at this location well-led?

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key question:

  • Are services at this location safe?

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 rated the practice as good for providing effective, caring and well-led services because:

We found that:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Patient outcome data (Quality Outcome Framework (QOF) 2017/18) showed practice performance for long term conditions to be in line with local and national averages. Following the inspection, the 2018/19 QOF data became available and showed improved outcomes for diabetes and respiratory conditions.
  • The practice had a high prevalence of diabetes and had sought to develop staff skills and support to help improve the management of diabetic patients.
  • The practice had implemented actions to improve uptake of breast and bowel screening which were above local averages. They were now focussing on cervical screening.
  • We saw evidence of service improvement activity, including clinical audit.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect. Results from the 2019 GP National Patient Survey had improved significantly since 2018 for questions relating to the quality of consultations. Survey results were in line with local and national averages with the exception of the question about involvement in decisions about care and treatment.
  • The practice had taken action to improve patient access to care and treatment. Results for the 2019 GP National Patient Survey had improved since 2018. However, there were still areas that were below local and national averages.
  • CQC comment cards were positive about the staff and the care and treatment they received. Patients told us that they felt listened to and staff took account of their needs and preferences. Comments relating to on access to services were mostly positive.
  • The practice provided a system of open access to patients who were most vulnerable.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services and for all population groups (with the exception of vulnerable people population group) because:

  • Uptake of cervical screening was below national minimum standards.
  • Although the practice advised us that they had plans to try and improve uptake these had not yet been fully implemented in order to demonstrate any clear improvement. Performance was largely unchanged from previous years.
  • Although, the practice had made improvements to improve patient satisfaction and was generally moving in the right direction, patient satisfaction in relation to access was still low and as yet the practice was unable to fully confirm patient satisfaction.
  • Issues relating to access impacted on the population groups.

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

  • Review the increase in diabetes exception reporting for the Quality Outcome Framework 2018/19 data to determine whether it could be improved.
  • Continue to review action taken to improve uptake of cervical cancer screening and antibiotic prescribing to ensure action taken is working.
  • Review systems for monitoring staff training to ensure staff remain up to date.
  • Continue to review action to improve patient satisfaction, in particular to access, in order to deliver further improvements.

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

15/02/2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Highgate Medical Centre on 15 February 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events, and improvements were made as a result of learning outcomes. Staff had access to the electronic incident reporting system on the practice computer system, which is linked with the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) to contribute to wider improvements in primary care.
  • Safeguarding arrangements protected children and vulnerable adults from abuse. These met with local requirements and current legislation.
  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed patient outcomes were similar to or higher than CCG and national averages. The most recent published results (for 2015/2016) showed the practice had achieved 99% of the total number of points available, compared with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) average of 97% and the national average of 95%.
  • There was evidence of quality improvement including clinical audit. The practice also participated in benchmarking and best practice sharing with other local GPs.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • We observed that staff members were helpful to patients and treated them with dignity and respect.
  • Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that most patients felt they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect, but the practice was lower than average for some of its satisfaction scores on consultations with GPs and nurses. The practice had created an action plan to improve patient satisfaction.
  • The practice had reviewed the needs of its local population and adopted measures to improve patient experience. For example staff spoke a number of different languages to accommodate the diverse local population. One of the GP partners was also a qualified yoga instructor and had piloted yoga lessons for patients held in the surgery. This was used to specifically target patients who experienced low moods.
  • Information was available to help patients understand the complaints system. A copy of the practice’s complaints policy was displayed in the waiting area to assist patients in understanding the complaints system. Details of how to complain were also included in the practice leaflet and on the website. The practice was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour and systems were in place to ensure compliance with this.
  • The practice had clear aims and staff worked in a way that supported these. The GP partners recognised the challenges the practice faced and had created a detailed plan for the future.
  • Staff we spoke with understood their roles and responsibilities, and there was a clearly defined structure to ensure everyone knew who the lead members of staff were and how to report a range of situations.
  • The practice was committed to continuous improvement and innovation, and proactively sought feedback from staff and patients.

We saw two areas of outstanding practice:

  • One of the GP partners offered free yoga lessons for patients one evening every week. This was used to specifically target patients who experienced low moods. There had been a strong uptake with up to 25 patients attending, and patients had the opportunity to discuss any concerns. Feedback had been positive with patients particularly commenting that their sleep had improved and that they had felt positive following yoga.
  • The practice had incorporated healthy living lectures with its Patient Participation Group (PPG) meetings to educate patients and empower them to improve their lifestyles. For example the practice had invited dieticians to demonstrate how to cook a healthy meal with few ingredients, and this was specifically aimed at the practice’s large Asian population. The PPG advertised the healthy living lectures to patients and also gave a presentation or held a patient quiz on the topic of the education session to help engage patients. These sessions were attended by approximately ten to 20 patients.

The areas where the practice should make improvements are:

  • Continue to review and encourage patient uptake of cervical and bowel cancer screening.


Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29 October 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with two doctors, three members of staff and five patients. After our inspection, we spoke by telephone with one patient who was a member of the patient participation group (PPG).

All patients we spoke with were satisfied with the surgery. This included the appointment system. When necessary patients were given an appointment for the same day. All patients said they could easily get through to the surgery by telephone. One said: 'I never have to wait long if I need an appointment and if I need one the same day, it's always arranged with no difficulty.'

We saw patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to.

The practice is located in a modern building. It is fully accessible for people with disabilities. There are disabled parking spaces close to the building in the car park.

We found the practice to be clean and well organised. Processes were in place to minimise the risk of infection. There were also processes in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system for regularly obtaining opinions from patients about the standard of the service they received.