Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
This practice is rated as Inadequate overall. (Previous inspection June 2015 – Good)
The key questions are rated as:
Are services safe? – Inadequate
Are services effective? – Inadequate
Are services caring? – Good
Are services responsive? – Good
Are services well-led? - Inadequate
As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:
Older People – Inadequate
People with long-term conditions – Inadequate
Families, children and young people – Inadequate
Working age people (including those retired and students – Inadequate
People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Inadequate
People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Inadequate
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Fitzalan Medical Group on 19 December 2017. The inspection was in response to concerns raised following a notification from the coroner about prescribing, monitoring and review processes within the practice.
At this inspection we found:
- Safety risk assessments had either not been undertaken or had not been reviewed. Risks were not consistently or adequately mitigated.
- Systems for managing medicines were unsafe, including inadequate repeat prescribing processes and poor monitoring and review of patients on high risk or repeat medicines.
- Medicines were not always stored securely and monitoring of the vaccine cold chain was insufficient. Blank prescriptions were not tracked within the practice. Patient Group Directions (PGDs) did not include the name of the practice recorded on them.
- There was no risk assessment in place for the types of emergency medicines needed within the practice. Monitoring of emergency medicines and equipment was inconsistently recorded.
- There was no formal system to ensure that abnormal test results and correspondence were acted on.
- There was no system to ensure or record action from safety alerts.
- There was little evidence of learning or changes to practice as a result of significant events.
- There was insufficient action planned or taken as a result of routine infection control audits.
- Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) data showed the practice was performing significantly below national standards in a number of areas including dementia, mental health and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with long-term conditions did not always have a structured annual review, however there was some evidence during inspection that these areas were beginning to be addressed.
- The practice performed above target for three out of the four childhood vaccines up to age two, however fell below standard for the pneumonia booster for two year olds.
- There were some gaps in staff training and the practice had not routinely ensured the ongoing competence of staff employed in advanced roles by audit of their clinical decision making, including non-medical prescribing.
- Results were below local and national averages for two out of four of the questions in the GP patient survey relating to patients feeling involved in decision making about their care.
- Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
- The practice had been addressing issues relating to access to services by increasing the availability of appointments and had recruited three additional GPs and three paramedic practitioners in the last year.
- Leaders did not evidence that they had the skills and capacity to address risks and deliver high quality sustainable care.
- Structures, processes and systems to support good governance and management were ineffective in relation to the management of safety, risk and quality improvement.
- There was no system to ensure the regular review of practice policies and in some cases practice activity was not undertaken in line with the policies.
- There were inconsistent processes to identify, understand, monitor and address current and future risks including risks to patient safety.
- There was no comprehensive audit plan for the practice and no evidence of current auditing of clinical performance.
- Learning was not consistently shared and used to make improvements.
The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:
- Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
- Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
- Ensure sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced persons are deployed to meet the fundamental standards of care and treatment.
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
- Take action to improve performance against the standard in relation to childhood vaccines.
- Take action to improve how clinical staff involve patients in decisions about their care in response to GP patient survey results.
I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.
The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.
Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice