Oakridge Park Medical Centre

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Oakridge Park Medical Centre on 26 October 2023.

Overall, the practice is rated requires improvement.

The ratings for each key question are:

Safe - requires improvement

Effective - good

Caring - good

Responsive – requires improvement

Well-led – good.

During the inspection process, the practice highlighted efforts they are making to improve outcomes for their population. The effect of these efforts is not yet reflected in verified outcomes data. As such, the ratings for this inspection have not been impacted. However, we continue to monitor the data and where we see potential changes, we will follow these up with the practice.

Following our previous inspection on 17 January 2017, 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 Oakridge Park Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We inspected Oakridge Park Medical Centre as part of our regulatory functions under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

We carried out this inspection because there had been a change in the provider of the service since we last inspected and rated the service, in line with our inspection priorities.

We looked at all the key questions (safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led) for this inspection. We also followed-up the areas identified at our last inspection where the provider should make improvements.

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 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 facilities
• completing clinical searches and reviewing patient records on the practice’s patient records system to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
• requesting evidence from the provider
• a site visit to Oakridge Park Medical Centre
• requesting and reviewing feedback from staff and patients who work at or use the service.

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
• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

• The practice kept people safe and safeguarded from abuse.

• The practice had not completed all recruitment checks for all staff and there were gaps in the records of staff immunisations.

• Some staff had not completed all training in line with the practice’s requirements.

• Systems to make sure medicines are always used safely and effectively and tasks are always actioned appropriately could be strengthened.

• The practice learned and made improvements in response to significant or learning events and incidents.

• Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment that met patients’ needs.

• Staff worked together and with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment and helped patients live healthier lives.

• Attendance for cervical screening remained below the national target.

• The practice did not always offer patients health checks and reviews in line with national guidance.

• Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients.

• Patients were given appropriate and timely information to cope emotionally with their care, treatment or condition.

• The practice organised and delivered services to meet the needs of their patient population, such as providing services for people of working age.

• Patients with specific or more urgent needs, such as those aged 75 or over or those receiving end of life care, were able to access timely care and treatment.

• The practice helped people access services, such as making arrangements to help people with learning disabilities attend appointments or providing an address for correspondence for people who lived locally on a houseboat.

• Feedback from people using the service included difficulty contacting the practice by telephone.
• The practice listened and responded to complaints.

• The practice could make it easier for patients to find information about how to make a complaint and improve ways for staff to provide feedback and be involved in the planning and development of the service.

• The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, we identified the following areas for improvement where the provider should:

• Strengthen the systems for overseeing and making sure all staff have the appropriate recruitment checks and immunisations and are up-to-date with required training. These include, but are not limited to, seeking explanations for gaps in a person’s employment history and completing training in equality and diversity .

• Strengthen their systems to make sure all patients who are eligible are offered health checks and reviews in line with national guidance. These include, but are not limited to, reviews for people with a learning disability.

• Take actions to make sure medicines are always used safely and effectively, for example through the use of Patient Group Directions (PGDs), medicines reviews and responding to safety alerts.

• Take steps to strengthen the processes for actioning tasks. This includes, but is not limited to, strengthening processes to reduce the risk of missing or delaying sending referrals, including urgent referrals such as those for suspected cancer.

• Continue to monitor and take actions to improve attendance for cervical screening.

• Continue to monitor and take actions to improve patient access. This includes, but is not limited to, improving telephone access.

• Continue to develop ways for people to provide feedback about and be involved in the development of the service. This includes, but is not limited to, assisting the development of the Patient Participation Group, making it easier for patients to find information about how to make a complaint and involving staff in the development of the practice’s vision and strategy.

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