The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Urgent care service or mobile doctor

Archived: Brent Urgent Care

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Central Middlesex Hospital, Acton Lane, Park Royal, London, NW10 7NS 07825 240900

Provided and run by:
Practice Plus Group Hospitals Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

16 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Brent Urgent Care Centre (Care UK Clinical services Limited) on 16 March 2016. Overall the service is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place to report and record significant events. Staff knew how to raise concerns and understood the need to report incidents.
  • All incidents were recorded on the electronic incident recording system which enabled an organisation-wide overview. Learning was based on a thorough analysis and investigation of any errors and incidents.
  • The provider maintained a risk register and held regular local and organisational governance meetings. Staff demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities and all had received training on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults relevant to their role.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the service complied with these requirements.
  • The service had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • 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.
  • Although the provider demonstrated a good understanding of the service’s performance and was meeting the majority of its performance targets, it had failed to achieve for a 12-month period the performance target to triage and determine the care pathways for children and adults within the specified timeframes.
  • Patient feedback indicated that patients were treated with care and respect and were involved in 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.
  • The service was accessible 24 hours every day. Patient feedback was positive about the ease of using the service and time taken to receive treatment.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure at organisational and local level and staff told us they felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure failing performance targets are monitored and improved to mitigate the risks to the health and safety of patients receiving care and treatment.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure all staff understand, and continue to understand, the fire evacuation plan.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 February 2014

During a routine inspection

Patients told us that their privacy and dignity were respected. They were supported to give valid consent before they received care, treatment and support.

The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse. Staff were aware of what constituted abuse and were aware of action to take when responding to allegations or incidents of abuse.

Patients records were kept secure and confidential. Patients who used the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment and these were acted upon.

22 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with two staff members who commended the leadership of the new manager, to whom they attributed most of the positive changes. They were content with management support who they felt they could approach at any time knowing their concerns would be addressed.

The provider had systems to monitor the quality of the service, some of which we saw had been utilised to produce service improvement plans. These included systems to monitor the emergency equipment, which ensured the equipment was regularly checked for safety.

23 April 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We talked with one person who used the service and they told us that they were satisfied with their visit to the service and that the consultation had met their needs.

A recent patient satisfaction survey showed that almost 99% of patients were satisfied with the cleanliness of the service and were confident in health professionals' attention to hygiene. In the same survey almost all patients considered that the health care professional they saw had explained treatment to them in a way they understood.

We saw that there were systems in place to ensure the safe handling of medicines and appropriate checks were undertaken on staff before they started work. However, the provider failed to ensure that suitable arrangements were in place to check that emergency equipment was properly maintained and suitable for its purpose. Less than half of all staff had received appropriate training in fire safety and safeguarding adults and children.

The provider had a system in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided to people. However, this was not always being implemented effectively and some actions identified as a result of audits had not been followed up.