The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Tri-Links Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Tri-Links, 130 Tamworth Road, Amington, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B77 3BZ (01827) 54777

Provided and run by:
Tri-Links Medical Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Tri-Links 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 Tri-Links Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

28 March 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Tri-Links Medical Practice on 28 March 2020. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

6 July 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Tri Links Medical Centre on 27 July 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good with requires improvement for providing a safe service. The full comprehensive report on the 27 July 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Tri Links Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 6 and 14 July 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations identified at our previous inspection on 27 July 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Appropriate recruitment checks were completed on all staff employed including locum staff.
  • A system had been implemented to ensure alerts were communicated to appropriate staff and appropriate actions taken.
  • Learning outcomes from significant events were seen to have been shared with the wider practice team.
  • The emergency medicines held at the practice had been risk assessed.
  • The business continuity plan was kept off site so that access was possible should access to the building be restricted.

Further improvements included:

  • Appropriate training and annual appraisals were provided for all staff.
  • The provider had implemented procedures aimed at improving the uptake rates of cancer screening.
  • The practice had taken steps to proactively identify more patients who also acted as carers.
  • The complaints procedure had been revised to advise patients of their options should they not be satisfied with the response from the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

27 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Tri Links Medical Centre on 27 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients and staff were not always assessed and monitored to ensure learning outcomes were acted on.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had completed most training to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. There were a number of exceptions where staff were unable to evidence knowledge through training.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available, easy to understand but only available in the waiting area on request. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients 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.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • 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 provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

There were areas of practice where the provider must make improvements:

  • Ensure appropriate recruitment checks are completed on all staff employed including locum staff.
  • Implement a system to ensure alerts are communicated to appropriate staff and appropriate actions are taken.

There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Implement a system to check that learning outcomes from significant events are acted on.
  • Ensure that appropriate training and annual appraisals are provided for all staff.
  • Review the emergency medications held at the practice.
  • Explore how the practice could proactively identify more patients who also acted as carers.
  • Ensure that the complaints procedure is up to date and that patients are aware of it.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our previous inspection we saw that effective recruitment and selection processes were not always in place. Appropriate checks had not always been undertaken before staff began to work at the practice. The provider submitted an action plan informing us of the actions they would take to address these issues.

During this inspection, we asked the provider to send us evidence that action had been taken. We reviewed the evidence and made our judgement. We saw that systems had been put in place for recruitment and selection processes and appropriate checks had been completed for staff working at the practice.

10 February 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with nine patients, four members of staff and a GP. Prior to our inspection we spoke with a spokesperson from the patient participation group (PPG) who was also a patient. PPGs are an effective way for patients and GP practices to work together to improve the service and to promote and improve the quality of the care. One patient told us, 'They have always been fantastic. I get into see a GP when I want to, usually the same day'. Another patient told us, 'It's very good and professional here. This is the best surgery I have been to regarding friendliness and professionalism'.

We saw that patient's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that patients were treated with dignity and respect. We saw that patients experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs.

Most staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to ensure that patients were protected from harm. We saw that the provider did not have systems in place to ensure patients were cared for by suitably qualified professional staff.

We saw that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that patients received. A spokesperson from the PPG told us, 'I would put the practice amongst the top 10 percent. It is clean and friendly and they do their utmost to get you in with the doctor the same day'. There was no registered manager in place on the day of our inspection. We have asked the provider to take action to address this.