The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr George Malczewski

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Longhill Health Care Centre, 162 Shannon Road, Hull, North Humberside, HU8 9RW (01482) 344255

Provided and run by:
Dr George Malczewski

All Inspections

11 October 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr George Malczewski on 11 February 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good however, the key question rating ‘Are services safe?’ was rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report from the February 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr George Malczewski on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. We conducted a further comprehensive follow-up inspection visit on 11 October 2017 and found improvements had been made. The report on the October 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr George Malczewski on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr George Malczewski on 11 October 2017. The overall rating for the practice was 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.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients 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.
  • Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment with the 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 the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Although patient feedback is being sought in other ways, the practice should develop the patient participation group (PPG) to drive improvement through further suggestions from a patient perspective.

Review the system that identifies patients who are also carers to help ensure that all patients on the practice list who are carers are offered relevant support if appropriate.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

11 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Malczewski Surgery on 11 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to the effective use of medicines, audits of infection control and the use of prescription pads.
  • Although some audits had been carried out, there was only limited evidence that the audits were driving improvement in performance to improve patient outcomes.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Some information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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.
  • Staff felt supported by management.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure that prescribing practices followed current best practice guidance for the effective use of medicines.

The areas where the provider should improvement are:

  • To ensure that patients at the practice who were carers have their care and support needs identified and met.

  • To ensure that all relevant staff have infection control training and regular infection control audits are undertaken.

  • Introduce a system to monitor the use of prescription pads.

  • To ensure that refresher and skill specific training is undertaken in a timely way to ensure that staff have up to date skills and knowledge.

  • The practice should ensure that its governance framework encompassed all areas of the work of the practice.

  • Findings from clinical audits must be used to improve patient outcomes

  • Ensure that they have assurance that all equipment is fit for use.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

31 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection because at the time of registration the provider had told us that they were not compliant in some outcome areas.

We spoke with several patients during the inspection and contacted a further three following our inspection. The patients we spoke with were happy with the service they received from the practice. Comments included:

'I'm happy with the service. The receptionists are always nice, chatty and friendly.'

'Whenever I've been the receptionists and doctor are really nice. I feel really lucky.'

'It's a pretty well run surgery, they seem pretty much on the ball. As far as our needs are concerned it seems fine.'

We saw that the practice actively sought the views of patients through comments boxes and patient participation group, and that changes to the service had been implemented as a result of the feedback.

We saw that the practice were up to date with infection control policies and procedures and following a tour around the clinical areas we found these to be clean and well maintained.

The feedback we received from patients regarding accessing appointments with the practice was positive which indicated that there were appropriate levels of staffing to support the needs of the service.