The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr S J Brook & Partners Also known as Forton Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Whites Place, Gosport, Hampshire, PO12 3JP (023) 9258 3333

Provided and run by:
Dr S J Brook & Partners

All Inspections

17 March 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr SJ Brook and Partners on 9 December 2014. Overall the practice was rated as good but the safe domain was rated as requires improvement. Following the inspection we issued a requirement notice. The notice was issued due to a breach of Regulation 12 of The Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activity) Regulations 2014, relating to staffing and recruitment.

The areas of risk identified at Dr SJ Brook and Partners were:

  • The provider must ensure that a risk assessment was undertaken for all staff who do not have a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in place, such as administrators.
  • The provider must ensure recruitment records included references from previous employment particularly where they have previously worked in health and social care services so that staff were recruited safely.
  • The provider must ensure there was a written protocol in place for recruiting locum GPs employed by the practice.

The full comprehensive report on the 9 December 2014 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr SJ Brook and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a focused desk-top inspection carried out on 17 March 2017, to confirm that the practice had carried out their action plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 9 December 2014. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected during this inspection, were as follows:

  • We saw documentary evidence that a risk assessment tool was in place to determine whether administrative staff required a DBS check.
  • We saw documentary evidence of a recruitment policy specifying checks of evidence of conduct in previous employment. We also saw a specific recruitment record for a staff member employed after the 9 December 2014 inspection.
  • We saw documentary evidence that there now is a written protocol in place for locum GPs employed by the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

9 December 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Dr Brook and Partners at Forton Medical Centre, Whites Place, Gosport, PO12 3JP on 9 December 2014.

Overall the practice is rated as good. It was good for safe, effective, caring and well lead. It was also rated good for all the population groups.. Specifically we found the practice requires improvement for providing safe services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There was a strategy and track record of continuous improvement for care and responded to the needs of patients living in the area.
  • Patients were complimentary about the care and support they received from staff.
  • Staff told us they were committed to providing a service that put patients first.
  • The practice were aware of concerns related to access to appointments and were working with the patient participation group to improve this.
  • The practice was aware of the differing needs of the patients registered with them and was able to provide appropriate care, support and treatment.
  • The practice showed good child immunisation percentages, which were in line with the percentage receiving vaccinations across the rest of the clinical commissioning group.
  • The practice showed a better than average result in areas such as maintaining a register of all patients in need of palliative care or support irrespective of age and maintaining a register of patients aged 18 or over with learning disabilities. The practice held regular multidisciplinary case review meetings where all patients on the palliative care register were discussed.
  • The practice employed an independent pharmacist who worked closely with patients and pharmacies to improve efficiency in prescribing.

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

Importantly, the provider must: Ensure that all required information is available and satisfactory checks have been made prior to a member of staff commencing employment.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At a previous inspection in November 2013 of Dr S J Brook and Partners we found that the provider could not evidence that all appropriate checks were undertaken before staff commenced work.

We judged this to have a minor impact and asked the provider to send us an action plan detailing how they would work to improve this. We received this on 10 December 2013 and they told us they would be compliant by 31 December 2013.

At this inspection we reviewed the progress the provider had made and found that they had taken sufficient action to address the area of concern and now ensured that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff commenced work.

20 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service and with clinical and non-clinical staff.

People we spoke with expressed mixed feelings about the service they received. People described the care and treatment they received for the doctors as good, however all expressed dissatisfaction with the appointments booking system.

People received care that ensured their safety and welfare. People were assessed and care was provided to meet their individual needs. Diagnostic tests were carried out if necessary and appropriately followed up.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and respond appropriately.

People could not be assured that the practice carried out safe and effective recruitment practices as the records required were not maintained.

The practice monitored the quality of the service by performing audits and seeking the views of the patients by surveys and engagement in the Patient Participation Group (PPG).