The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Greet Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

50 Percy Road, Birmingham, West Midlands, B11 3ND (0121) 766 6113

Provided and run by:
Greet Medical Practice

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - 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 Greet Medical 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 Greet Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

27 July 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Greet Medical Practice on 27 July 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring – Good (carried over from previous inspection)

Responsive – Good (carried over from previous inspection)

Well-led – Good

Following our previous inspection on 21 October 2021 the practice was rated as good for providing effective, caring and responsive services. However, it was rated as requires improvement for providing safe and well-led services and therefore, rated requires improvement overall.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused follow-up inspection to follow up on:

  • Safe, effective and well-led
  • The breaches previously identified
  • We carried forward ratings for caring and responsive from previous inspections as the information we held did not indicate any change to ratings.

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 good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice had improved in the areas identified in our previous inspection in October 2019 to provide care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. The practice was aware some areas needed further improvement including uptake rates for cervical cytology and childhood immunisation. The practice was able to demonstrate that improvements were being achieved.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care. The leadership team were aware of the challenges and risks and were addressing them. For example, the practice was able to demonstrate how they met challenges to meet the access needs of patients. The latest national patient survey results showed improvement in patient satisfaction to access to appointments.

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

  • Continue to improve cervical cytology and childhood immunisation uptake rates.

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

21 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced Annual Regulatory Review (ARR) focused inspection at Greet Medical Practice on 21 October 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions.

  • Effective
  • Caring
  • Responsive
  • Well-led

During the course of the inspection, we had cause to look at the Safe Key question due to concerns we identified.

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 requires improvement overall. The safe and well-led key questions were rated as requires improvement. The effective, caring and responsive key questions were rated as good overall, with the “working age” population group in the effective key question, rated as requires improvement, due to low cancer screening uptake.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services because;

  • The practice could not demonstrate that systems that were in place to ensure that patients were kept safe were always effective. For example, systems for communicating with the “out of hours” provider were not effective. Systems for the safe storage and management of medicines were ineffective.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective, caring and responsive services because;

  • The practice provided effective clinical service delivery for five of the six population groups. Childhood immunisations were in line with national targets and the practice was able to demonstrate that they provided effective services for those whose circumstances make them vulnerable, in particular, homeless patients. The practice was rated as requires improvement for the “working age people” population group due to poor cancer screening uptake results and an inability to demonstrate that actions taken in these areas were improving this.
  • The practice was unable to demonstrate that they had considered all patient satisfaction feedback ot that it had taken any actions to address the lower areas of satisfaction in this area during the inspection. Following the inspection, the practice demonstrated that it had completed a detailed action plan prior to re-surveying patients to ensure that satisfaction was improving.
  • The practice was unable to demonstrate that they had considered all patient satisfaction feedback or had taken some action to address issues relating to access to care and treatment during the inspection. Following the inspection, the practice demonstrated that it had completed a detailed action plan prior to re-surveying patients to ensure that satisfaction was improving.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing well-led services because;

  • The practice was rated as requires improvement for providing well-led services because they were unable to fully demonstrate that overall governance and systems in place for risk management were fully embedded, effective or working as intended.

The areas that the provider MUST make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas that the provider SHOULD make improvements are:

  • Review hypnotic prescribing to ensure that this continues to reduce.
  • Continue to review and explore ways of improving patient satisfaction.
  • Review processes for keeping prescriptions fully secure.
  • Continue to ensure that improvements are made in relating to cancer screening uptake.

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

8 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Greet Medical Practice on 8 August 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.

  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • We saw evidence that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

  • The practice had taken measures to improve patient satisfaction where data showed patients rated the practice below others. This included developing an action plan, reviewing follow-up actions, carrying out staff training on customer care, and increasing the availability of appointments.

  • Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints, concerns and patient feedback.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • The practice had responded to GP patient survey results by carrying out a number of actions including by increasing the availability of appointments.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

  • The practice was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The area where the provider should make improvements is:

  • The provider should continue to explore ways to identify and respond to patient feedback and ensure improvement to national GP patient survey results.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice