Archived: Shoebury Health Centre

This practice is rated as 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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Shoebury Health Centre on 18 April 2018. We carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014

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.
• 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.
• National data showed that the practice was performing in line with national averages for most indicators. Where the practice had performed below national average they had acknowledged it and worked on improving the outcomes.
• The practice involved patients in regular reviews of their medicines.
• There was a system for receiving and actioning safety alerts however the process was nurse led with little guidance from the GPs. Since the inspection the practice has changed their procedures and GPs now provide more oversight.
• We found the practice had appropriate systems in place to monitor medicines requiring refrigeration.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• Staff had received mandatory training applicable to their role and the practice provided staff with ongoing support.
• There was sufficient and appropriate equipment for use in the treatment of patients, including in the event of a medical emergency and the equipment was calibrated to ensure it was working correctly.
• We found the practice had conducted some environmental risk assessments however they were awaiting the formal results of the assessments.
• Staff we spoke with on the day said although they had received information regarding sepsis they would benefit from further training.
• The practice had identified 1.9% of its practice list as carers by highlighting them during registration and clinical consultations.
• The practice was clean and tidy and staff had reviewed infection prevention control and policies.
• Data from the national GP patient survey published in July 2017 showed patients rated the practice in line with or higher than others for all aspects of care.
• The practice had an active virtual patient participation group but had struggled to form a group to conduct regular meetings.
• We received 49 positive comment cards regarding the care and service at the practice.
• The practice was aware of their patient population needs and their preferences and worked to accommodate them.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Strengthen sepsis information provided to non-clinical staff members.
• Strengthen process of receiving and acting on safety alerts.
• Continue efforts to build relations and form a patient participation group.
• Organise risk assessment documentation so that are accessible to the practice.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice