The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Rutherford Medical Centre

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

1 Rutherford Road, Liverpool, Merseyside, L18 0HJ (0151) 722 1803

Provided and run by:
Rutherford Medical Centre

All Inspections

20, 25, 26 September 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Rutherford Medical Centre on 20, 25 and 26 September 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as Requires Improvement.

Safe – requires improvement

Effective – requires improvement

Caring – good

Responsive – good

Well-led – good

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

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection in line with our inspection priorities.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • 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 found that:

We rated the provider as Requires Improvement for providing safe services. This was because:

  • The arrangements for managing medicines did not always keep patients safe.
  • Systems for managing historical safety alerts were not always effective.
  • The system in place for recording and acting on historic safety alerts was not effective.

We rated the provider as Requires Improvement for providing effective services. This was because:

  • Patients with long-term conditions were not always receiving appropriate monitoring and reviews.

We rated the provider as Good for providing caring services. This was because;

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect.
  • Patient feedback about their involvement in decisions about their care and being treated with care and concern was positive.

We rated the provider as Good for providing responsive services. This was because;

  • Patients were able to make appointments in a way that met their needs.
  • Feedback from patients was being used to drive improvement.

We rated the provider as Good for providing well-led services. This was because:

  • There was compassionate, inclusive and effective leadership at all levels.
  • The practice had a culture which drove high quality sustainable care.
  • The practice involved the public, staff and external partners to sustain high quality and sustainable care.

We found one breach of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

The provider should:

  • Improve the uptake of cervical screening for eligible patients.
  • Take action to ensure that all Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) assessments are reviewed annually.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

8 October 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Rutherford Medical Centre on 8 October 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also good for providing services for all the population groups it serves.

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

  • Good systems were in place to ensure incidents and significant events were identified, investigated and reported. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate for their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Patients spoke very positively about the practice and its staff. They said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available, in different languages and easy to understand for the local population.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available on the same day.
  • 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice