The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr R M Hall and Partners, Kennington Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

200 Kennington Road, Kennington, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX1 5PY (01865) 730911

Provided and run by:
Dr R M Hall and Partners, Kennington Health Centre

All Inspections

13 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr R M Hall and Partners, Kennington Health Centre on 13 September 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was a system in place for reporting and recording significant events. Reviews of complaints, incidents and other learning events were thorough.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ ongoing needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • National data suggested patients received appropriate care for long term conditions.
  • The practice planned its services based on the needs and demographic of its patient population.
  • Staff were trained in order to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patient feedback in CQC comment cards suggested patients felt staff were caring and considerate.
  • 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 was a strong ethos of continuous learning and improvement.

Areas the provide should make improvements are:

  • Review the training and guidance related to prioritising patients when calling to request appointments available to reception staff, to ensure that urgent needs are identified wherever possible.
  • Continue to improve the recording of patient medicine reviews to ensure this system can be monitored and that patients are receiving timely reviews.
  • Ensure disposable curtains are changed in line with their expiry dates.
  • Consider providing a hearing loop to support patients with hearing difficulties.
  • Review patient feedback regarding their satisfaction with the practice, particularly in monitoring the new appointment system.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

13 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we visited Dr R M Hall and partners on 16 October 2013 we found that effective systems were not in place to ensure staff were appropriately trained. Training was not recorded and the professional registration of nursing staff had not been checked.

The practice had told us, by submitting an action plan, that they were introducing systems to address this issue. We carried out this visit to confirm that the action the practice told us they would take had been undertaken.

The practice had an effective system to assure that appropriate training had taken place and was recorded. We saw that the professional registration of nursing staff was checked and recorded.

We met with the practice manager and reviewed training records and personnel files. We did not speak with patients or staff during our visit because it was not appropriate to do so.

16 October 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit to Dr Hall and partners we met with the practice manager and the senior partner. We spoke with six patients who attended the practice, with a member of the patient participation group (PPG) and with four members of staff.

Patients were happy with the information and explanations they were given about their treatment. A patient we spoke with said "my doctor is fantastic and explains everything". The practice website had links to a wide range of health information.

Patients received care and treatment appropriate to their assessed needs. One of the patients we spoke with said 'I get recalled for health checks. It's very reassuring, I like that'. We saw that disease registers were kept up-to-date and a patient follow up system was in place.

Patients received care and treatment in a clean and hygienic environment. Appropriate cleaning schedules were in place and quality of cleaning was monitored.

Effective systems were not in place to ensure staff were appropriately trained. Training was not recorded and the professional registration of nursing staff had not been checked.

Patients views were sought and acted upon. The practice had conducted patient satisfaction surveys and a patient participation group was active. We saw that patients had asked for a self monitoring blood pressure machine and the practice had purchased and installed one.