The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Northumberland Heath Medical Centre Also known as Drs McIntyre, Fok, Kailey & Ghosh

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Hind Crescent, Northumberland Heath, Erith, Kent, DA8 3DB (01322) 336556

Provided and run by:
Northumberland Heath Medical Centre

All Inspections

16 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused assessment of the Responsive key question at Northumberland Heath Medical Centre on 16 November 2023.

Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Effective - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Caring - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Responsive - requires improvement

Well-led - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

We recognise the pressure that practices are currently working under and the efforts staff are making to maintain levels of access for their patients. At the same time, our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care.

Although we saw the practice was attempting to improve access, this was not yet reflected in the GP patient survey data or other sources of patient feedback. Therefore, the rating for the Responsive key question is requires improvement, as ratings depend on evidence of impact and must reflect the lived experience that people were reporting at the time of inspection.

Following our previous inspection on 2 August 2019, 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 Northumberland Heath Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this assessment in line with our inspection priorities, to look specifically at access and the other areas covered by the Responsive key question.

How we carried out the assessment

This assessment was carried out in a way without the need for a visit. We:

  • assessed data
  • spoke to staff using video conferencing
  • looked at written evidence using video conferencing.

Our findings

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

  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • The practice had adjusted services to meet patients’ needs, but had not complied with the Accessible Information Standard as patients were not asked about their needs at registration.
  • Patients were not always able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • There were particular issues with the ease with which patients could contact the practice by telephone. The practice had made some changes to try to improve telephone access, but were constrained by the telephone system in place. The telephone system was due to be replaced, as part of a national initiative, by March 2024.
  • Complaints were listened and responded to and used to improve the quality of care.

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

  • Revise patient registration form to meet the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard.
  • Continue to monitor and take steps to improve telephone 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

3 January 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Northumberland Heath Medical Centre on 3 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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 and good for all population groups other than long term conditions which is rated as requires improvement.

We found that:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • Governance processes were established and embedded.
  • Safety alerts, although dealt with in an effective manner with patient searches run and appropriate action taken, were not recorded in one central location so that access could be gained by all staff.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

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

  • Introduce a central recording system for safety alerts so that progress and completion can be seen by anyone in the practice.
  • Ensure that all staff receive training specifically in relation to the ‘red flag’ sepsis symptoms that might be reported by patients.
  • Consider ways in which the exception reporting rate for diabetes could be be reduced so that more individuals have access to appropriate support, care and treatment.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

18 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Northumberland Heath Medical Centre on 18 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

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 for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said that it was not always easy to make appointments at the surgery.
  • 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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • The practice should consider implementing internal appraisals for the salaried GPs at the practice.

  • The practice should consider implementing a formal register of patients who are carers.

  • In light of patient feedback, the practice should consider undertaking a review of the level of staffing of both clinical and non-clinical staff to ensure that it is sufficient to meet the needs of the practice’s patients.

  • The practice should consider further increasing the number of staff who take telephone calls.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice