• Doctor
  • GP practice

Mayfield Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

54 Trentham Road, Longton, Stoke On Trent, Staffordshire, ST3 4DW (01782) 315654

Provided and run by:
Mayfield Surgery

All Inspections

20 September 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Mayfield Surgery on 20 September 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe – good.

Effective – good.

Caring – good.

Responsive – requires improvement.

Well-led – good.

Following our previous inspection on 22 February 2022, the practice was rated requires improvement overall with requires improvement in providing a safe and well led service and the service was rated good in providing an effective service.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Mayfield Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection.

We carried out this inspection to follow up breaches of regulation from a previous inspection in line with our inspection priorities.

The focus of our inspection included:

  • Inspection of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led domains.
  • Followed up on the breaches of regulations and ‘shoulds’ identified in the previous inspection.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A site visit.
  • Staff feedback questionnaires.
  • Feedback from stakeholders such as their local Healthwatch and Integrated Care Board and patient feedback such as the National GP survey and the practice in house patient feedback surveys.

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 found that:

  • Improvements had been made in all the areas identified during the inspection in February 2022 as requiring improvement.
  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • There was an inconsistent approach to follow up within a week of some patients requiring high dose steroid treatment for severe asthma episodes.
  • The practice had successfully continued to exceed the WHO target in four out of the five childhood vaccination/immunisation indicators.
  • The practice had successfully continued to exceed the 80% target in cervical cancer screening.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Improvement was required in the responsive domain. We noted the provider was aware of the challenges their patients faced around access and that action was taken in March 2023. We did not yet have sufficient evidence of the impact these changes made on access, beyond the reduction in average wait times on the telephone (which was a positive impact).
  • The practice continued to ensure focused individual support for palliative care patients provided the practice Advanced Nurse Practitioner.
  • Staff reported positively on the practice culture, that their wellbeing was considered, and they could speak up and would be supported to do so without fear of retribution.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

​​​​​​​Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Evaluate the system in place to ensure consistency of approach to patients requiring a follow up within a week of requiring high dose steroid treatment for severe asthma episodes.
  • Continue to embed and evaluate the changes made to improve patient access.
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of the new management systems instigated and ensure these become embedded and are sustained.
  • Continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the systems put in place to improve patient access.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

22 February 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Dr. McCarthy and Partners on 22 February 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Requires Improvement.

  • Safe - Requires Improvement
  • Effective - Good
  • Well-led - Requires Improvement

Our previous inspection on 10 November 2017 were the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions: The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr. McCarthy and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection with a site visit completed on 22 February 2022:

The focus of the inspection included:

  • To follow up on information of concern shared to the Care Quality Commission regarding record keeping.
  • A review of Safe, Effective and Well Led domains

How we carried out the inspection/review

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/reviews (delete as appropriate) 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 using video conferencing
  • 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 Requires Improvement overall

We found that:

  • There were no concerns found in relation to the specified record keeping concern raised anonymously to the Care Quality Commission.
  • The practice had adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • There were gaps in the monitoring and management of medicines system.
  • The practice training matrix demonstrated significant gaps in staff refresher training.
  • There were some gaps found in the practice’s governance systems and processes. For example, there was a lack of oversight to ensure recruitment records were complete, there were no formalised competency reviews and documented role specific inductions were yet to be developed.

We found breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure specified information is available regarding each person employed.

The provider should:

  • Provide the next steps patients may choose to take within complaint investigation outcome letters.
  • Continue to improve the practice carer register numbers.
  • Develop a Patient Participation Group
  • Develop, monitor and evaluate a documented practice strategy

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

18 October 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr. McCarthy and Partners on 5 and 16 June 2017. The overall rating for the practice was Good with Requires Improvement in Well Led. The full comprehensive report on the 5 and 16 June 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr. McCarthy and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 18 October 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 5 and 16 June 2017. 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 were as follows:

  • Staff who provided a chaperone service had been in receipt of chaperone training and been subject to disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks.

  • Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) systems had been implemented and monitored; the IPC audit findings demonstrated that actions required included a timescale for completion to reduce risk. A legionella risk assessment had been completed in October 2017. (Legionella is a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings).

  • Fire safety checks were documented which included for example attendees at the fire evacuation drill.

  • The provider had a basic general environment risk assessment in place.

  • The practice had completed a thorough risk assessment of the window blinds and taken remedial action where appropriate.

  • The provider had ensured that the comprehensive business continuity plan for major incidents such as power failure or building damage included emergency contact numbers for staff.

  • Staff had received performance reviews.

  • Staff had provided information on their immunity status. Actions in relation to this were still in progress including advice from the occupational health service and risk assessments for those staff without childhood immunisations.

  • There was a formal process in place to monitor that NICE guideline and patient safety alerts were actioned and shared.

  • The practice had received quotes and advice on their consideration of a hearing loop to take account of the practice demographic and the needs of their population groups and consideration into automated doors to improve patient access to the premises.

  • The practice staff demonstrated awareness of the practice vision values and business strategy.

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

The provider should:

  • Continue to improve the collation of carers numbers documented on the practice carers’ register.

  • Complete the actions in progress in relation to staff immunity status and any actions, or risk assessments in relation to staff that had not been not in receipt of childhood immunisations.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

5 & 16 June 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr. McCarthy and Partners on 5 and 16 June 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good with requires improvement in well led.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

  • The practice had the majority of systems to minimise risks to patient safety with exceptions. The exceptions included for example; ensuring all chaperones were in receipt of appropriate checks and training, completion of a legionella risk assessment and ensuring the systems in place for fire safety checks were fully documented.

  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Staff had received inductions but not all were well documented and not all staff had received annual performance reviews.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and 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.
  • Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • 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 practice staff were however unaware of the practices documented mission statement or strategy to be able to understand the practice vision and values.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care. For example:

  • Chaperones must be in receipt of suitable training and be subject to disclosure and baring service (DBS) checks or have a completed risk assessment in place.

  • Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) systems should be fully implemented and monitored;the IPC audit findings should be actioned in a timely manner to reduce risk; and a legionella risk assessment should be completed . (Legionella is a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings).

  • Ensure fire safety checks are fully documented.

  • Complete a general risk assessment including a risk assessment of the window blinds.

  • Ensure that the comprehensive business continuity plan for major incidents such as power failure or building damage includes emergency contact numbers for staff.

  • Ensure that staff are in receipt of regular performance reviews.

  • Maintain all staffs full immunity status.

  • Implement a formal process to demonstrate how the practice monitored that NICE guidelines and patient safety alerts were actioned.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Consider a hearing loop to take account of the practice demographic and the needs of their population groups and consider automated doors to improve patient access to the premises.

  • Improve the collation of carers numbers documented on the practice carers’ register.

  • Improve staff awareness of the practice vision values and business strategy.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 December 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This is the report of findings from our inspection of Dr McCarthy and Partners. We undertook a comprehensive inspection on 10 December 2014. We spoke with patients, staff and the practice management team. The practice is rated as good overall, in caring, effective, responsive and well led and required improvement in some areas within safe.

Our key findings were as follows;

• All staff understood their responsibilities in raising concerns and reporting incidents and near misses.

• The practice linked with the Clinical Commissioning Group and other local providers to enhance services and share best practice.

• The practice had a clear shared vision across all staff.

• Complaints were sensitively handled and patients are kept informed of the outcome of their comments and complaints

• The appointment system was sensitive to the needs of the population groups the practice served offering open surgeries and extended hours each weekday from 7am to 9.30am.

We saw areas of outstanding practice including:

• The practice was actively involved in local and national initiatives to enhance the care offered to patients. They were proactive in trailing new ways of working to ensure they continued to meet the needs of the patients registered with the practice, such as their open surgeries each weekday morning from 7am to 9.30am.

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

The provider should:

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

• Consider how they manage and monitor records in relation to staff training.

• Improve storage in line with the Records Management: NHS Code of Practice for patient paper records on the practice first floor.

• Ensure that non clinical staff who carry out chaperoning are aware of their responsibilities and are subject to appropriate risk assessment measures such as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

• Ensure all staff complete a fire drill.

• Complete an appropriate Legionella risk assessment and conduct an infection prevention and control audit.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice