The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Headland Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Groves Street, Hartlepool, Cleveland, TS24 0NZ (01429) 222170

Provided and run by:
The Headland Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Headland Medical Centre 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 The Headland Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

4 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Headland Medical Centre on 4 February 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.

25/04/2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 24 November 2015 – Good)

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 The Headland Medical Centre on 25 April 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

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.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • The practice was open and transparent, and had systems in place to adhere to the Duty of Candour.
  • The practice displayed a strong commitment to multidisciplinary working and could evidence how this positively impacted on individual patient care.
  • Discussion with staff and feedback from patients showed that staff were highly motivated to deliver care that was respectful, kind and caring.
  • The practice organised and delivered their services to meet the needs of their patient population. They were proactive in understanding the needs of the different patient groups.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and update the fire risk assessment.
  • Improve the oversight of the registered nurses in the management of long term conditions.
  • Review and amend the system for the ongoing management of high risk drugs.
  • Continue to monitor and review the management of sepsis at the practice

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

24 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Headland Medical Centre on 24 November 2015. 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.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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 and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment as the practice was operated on a walk-in-basis. They did say that they could usually see a named GP.
  • 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.

Areas of outstanding practice:

The practice has an open access walk in and wait appointment system although there were some pre-bookable appointments available each morning.

The area where the provider should make improvement is:

  • Ensure there are effective arrangements in place to ensure that vaccines and other medicines stored in the refrigerators are stored at the correct temperatures and appropriate records are maintained.

  • Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary employment checks for all staff.

  • Ensure training records are made available and personal development plans are in place.

  • Develop a website, thus making more information available to the patients of the practice.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

7 November 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we spoke with four patients, the practice manager, one of the general practitioners (GPs), two practice nurses and reception and administration staff.

Patients we spoke with told us they were very happy with the care and support they received from the practice. One patient told us, "The doctors are lovely, and do explain everything clearly, including to the children." Another patient said, "The nurse was fantastic, she gave me a leaflet about the treatment and went through it with me.' Another patient told us, 'I am more than happy and have recommended the practice.'

We were able to observe the experiences of patients. We saw that staff treated patients with dignity and respect. We saw that patients had their care and treatment needs assessed and that treatment plans were in place. The practice had a consent policy in place and we saw that appropriate consent was gained before patients had procedures or treatment carried out.

We saw that there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found that training was available for staff, they had appraisals and were supported in their roles.

There were effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received.