The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Riverside Family Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

St Peters Health Centre, Church Street, Burnley, Lancashire, BB11 2DL (01282) 644123

Provided and run by:
Riverside Family Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Riverside Family Practice on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Riverside Family Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

16 September 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Riverside Family Practice on 16 September 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

The ratings for each key question are:

Safe - Good

Effective – Requires improvement

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 13 March 2018, 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 Riverside Family Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection carried out due to the length of time since the last inspection.

How we carried out the inspection

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 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 short 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 Good overall

We found that:

  • 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.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice 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.
  • 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:

  • Review the policy on actioning pathology results within one to two weeks to mitigate the risk of an abnormal result not being actioned in a timely manner.
  • Ensure that there is a robust process in place to check that the required monitoring has been done for patients on all high risk drugs and for those with a long term condition.
  • The practice should ensure that the second cycles of audits are completed to demonstrate improvements in patient care.
  • Improve the quality of medication reviews so that all reviews done are of the same standard and ensure that medication reviews are being done and coded correctly at least annually.
  • Investigate the reason for the data showing low uptake for childhood immunisation, possibly a coding error.

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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

18th January 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on Riverside Family Practice on 16 August 2017. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement as the safe, effective and well led domains were all rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the August 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for the Riverside Family Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was carried out on 18 January 2018 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach identified in the requirement notice.

The practice is now rated as good for providing safe, effective, and well led services. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had taken action to address the concerns raised at the CQC inspection in August 2017. They had put measures in place to ensure they were compliant with regulations.
  • Appropriate arrangements were now in place to ensure that risk assessments were updated.
  • The practice had improved arrangements for review and update of policies and dissemination to staff.
  • Recommendations made at the previous inspection, such as updated training in safeguarding and considering management training for staff had been actioned.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16th August 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Riverside Family Practice (previously known as Ruskin Family Practice) on 16th August 2017. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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.

  • We saw no evidence that infection control audits were being undertaken or improvements planned.

  • Staff had not received safeguarding training appropriate to their role

  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
  • The practice was comparable with the average for its satisfaction scores on consultations with GPs and nurses
  • The health and wellbeing of patients in relation to their caring responsibilities was reviewed when they attended for a consultation or health check. They were directed to the various avenues of support available to them.
  • Information about the services provided and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients told us they found it easy to make an appointment with the 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 insufficient quality monitoring to ensure care and treatment was effective
  • 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 provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

There were areas where the provider must make improvements:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

  • Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate training, and appraisal necessary to enable them to carry out the duties.

There were areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • The practice safeguarding policy for vulnerable adults should be individualised to reflect the needs of the practice locality.

  • Practice staff should complete a Disclosure Barring Service check prior to undertaking chaperone duties.

  • Care and treatment of patients should only provided with the consent of the relevant person .

  • The practice should consider supporting staff to undertake management training.

  • Continue to identify and support patients who are also carers

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice