Campus View Medical Centre

Updated 9 October 2023

Campus View Medical Centre provides a range of primary medical services to the students and staff at Loughborough University and people living in the surrounding area, including two local care homes. Patients also included international students.

The provider is registered with CQC to deliver the Regulated Activities; diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery services and treatment of disease, disorder or injury and surgical procedures.

The practice delivers General Medical Services (GMS) to a patient population of about 18,170. This is part of a contract held with NHS England.

The practice population is predominantly white (79.5%) and asian (14.4%) patients. Information published by Public Health England shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the second from higest decile (nine out of ten). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others.

The practice is led by two GP partners and one non-clinical partner. There are six salaried GPs (one male and five female) and no locum GPs. The practice has a lead paramedic practitioner, practice nurse, one mental health practitioner, and two Health Care Assistants. There are pharmacists, a physiotherapist, midwife, mental health care facilitator, neurodiversity occupational therapist, mental health practitioner, and social prescribers working for partner organisations.

The practice is open from 7.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday.

When the practice is closed out of hours services are provided by the NHS 111 service.

Updated 9 October 2023

We carried out an announced inspection at Campus View Medical Centre on 5 July 2023.

Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

The ratings for each key question:

Safe – Good

Effective – Requires improvement.

Caring - Good.

Responsive - Good.

Well-led – Good.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

• Conducting staff interviews in person and on the phone
• Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
• Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
• Requesting evidence from the provider
• A site visit

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

• what we found when we inspected
• information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good overall

We found that:

• The service had good systems to ensure patients received safe and mainly effective care and treatment.
• There was an effective system to identify and safeguard people from abuse. Clinical staff received regular updates, training and took steps to ensure they were familiar with the most recent clinical guidelines.
• We observed staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect.
• Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
• The practice team demonstrated a commitment to learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

However we also found that:

• The practice was not routinely using data to drive the effectiveness of national screening programmes. Cervical screening uptake was well below national expected levels. A plan to improve the uptake of cervical screening was in place.
• The practice did not have a system for obtaining patient views as there was no active patient participation group. This was in the planning stage but had not yet been implemented.

In response to these findings the provider SHOULD:

• Improve the uptake in national programmes, specifically cervical screening.
• Continue to develop and embed the patient participation group.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence table.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services