The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Old Road Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

145-149 Old Road, Clacton On Sea, Essex, CO15 3AU (01255) 424334

Provided and run by:
Old Road Medical Practice

All Inspections

05 May 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Old Road Medical Practice on 04 June 2015. The overall rating for the practice was good; however, they were rated good for safe, caring, responsive and well-led services and requires improvement for effective services. The full comprehensive report on the June 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Old Road Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We carried out an announced comprehensive follow-up inspection at Old Road Surgery on 05 May 2017. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff members knew how to raise concerns, and report safety incidents.
  • Safety information was appropriately recorded; learning was identified and shared with all staff members.
  • The infection control policy met current guidance. Audits had been carried out, reviewed, and analysed to monitor infection control.
  • Risks to patients and staff members had been assessed, documented and acted on appropriately.
  • Staff members assessed and delivered patient care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge, and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and involved in their care and treatment decisions.
  • Information about the practice services and how to complain was readily available in English and Polish at the reception desk and the practice website in easy to understand formats.
  • The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour when dealing with complaints and significant events.
  • Patients said they were able to make an appointment with a named GP and they received continuity of care. We were also told they had access to urgent appointments on the day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and in addition, staff members felt supported by the GPs and practice management team.
  • The practice patient participation Group (PPG) worked proactively with the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Audits undertaken should be completed cycles, to measure improvement.
  • Identify areas of lower patient satisfaction within the GP survey to act on patient satisfaction improvement.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

04 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Old Road Medical Centre on 4 June 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing well-led, safe and responsive services, and requires improvement for providing effective services. It was also good for providing services to older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working aged people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances make them vulnerable and people with mental health (including people with dementia). The practice is rated as requires improvements for providing services to people with long term conditions.

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. Improvements were needed in how safety alerts and significant events were acted on and monitored.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance and referrals to secondary care services were made in a timely way.
  • Patients said they were treated with empathy, compassion, dignity and respect. They said that they were listened to and involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Complaints were dealt with appropriately and an apology offered when the practice got things wrong.
  • Appointments were flexible to meet the needs of all population groups.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff were supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider must:

  • Ensure that patients’ treatments and medicines are reviewed to minimise the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

The provider should:

  • Implement a written procedure for managing, reporting and investigating significant events that includes arrangements sharing learning and identifies who is responsible for reviewing and monitoring learning so as to minimise risks.
  • Ensure that staff who undertake chaperone duties complete training in respect of these.
  • Review policies and procedures around handling of blank prescription pads.
  • Ensure that policies and procedures are reviewed so that they reflect accurately the day-to-day management of the practice.
  • Ensure that clinical audits are used to monitor and improve the treatment outcomes for patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 April 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Following our inspection on 16 December 2013, we had concerns regarding the arrangements to ensure the privacy and dignity of people who used the surgery. In addition, we were not assured that staff knew how to report allegations of abuse and we found that paper medical records and confidential information which related to the people who used the surgery were not stored securely.

During our inspection on 10 April 2014, we found improvements had been made.

We saw that a privacy screen and a 'vacant or engaged' door sign were used to ensure the privacy and dignity of people who had an intimate examination or received treatment. We spoke with three people who used the surgery, one of whom said, 'I have no concerns about privacy here.'

We found that up to date policies and guidance were available for staff in relation to safeguarding adults and children. This included information on how to make a safeguarding referral. We were told by the practice manager that all staff, apart from one, had undertaken safeguarding training appropriate to their role. We spoke with one member of staff who told us, 'The training opened my eyes to different forms of abuse. We have a procedure to follow if we have a concern.'

We saw that paper medical records were stored securely and were accessed promptly when required. We were assured there was a procedure in place for checking that confidential information was stored securely as part of the end of day checks.

16 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people about how they were involved in decisions regarding their care and treatment. One person told us, 'They do listen to you. It is not like a conveyer belt, in and pills.' One clinician said, 'I give them the information they need to make their choice.'

We found there were not suitable arrangements in place to ensure people's privacy and dignity. On two occasions we saw staff members enter a treatment room without realising a person was using the room. We noted the treatment room and the room used for intimate examinations did not have a curtain round the examination couch.

We saw people with chronic diseases were reviewed. One person said, 'Yes they do discuss my asthma. They have called me in yearly for reviews.'

Staff had an acceptable level of knowledge about the types of abuse and how they would recognise abuse. The provider was not able to inform us how to refer a safeguarding concern to social services. We were not assured that safeguarding concerns were responded to appropriately.

There was a comprehensive competency based induction in place. We spoke with nine members of staff all of whom felt supported. One member of staff said, 'I feel very supported.' Staff received appropriate training to enable them to undertake their role effectively.

There was guidance available to staff relating to information governance. We found the paper medical records of people who used the surgery were not stored securely.