PC24 Also known as PC24 Kings Mill Hospital

Updated 4 December 2018

PC24 Out of Hours provides primary medical services across North Nottinghamshire

when GP practices are closed. The area covered incorporates Mansfield, Ashfield, Newark and Sherwood areas. The service is provided across two locations, PC24 at Mansfield Hospital and a satellite site at Newark Hospital. The provider is NEMS Community Benefit Services Limited and their administrative base is located at Fanum House, 484 Derby Road, Nottingham (http://www.nems.org.uk/).

Most patients access the out-of-hours service via the NHS 111 telephone service. Patients may be seen by a clinician, receive a telephone consultation or a home visit, depending on their needs. Patients can also access the locations as a walk-in patient or be referred from the hospital accident and emergency departments or urgent care centre.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of PC24 on 12 October 2018 based at Kings Mill Hospital due to concerns we had received. We then carried out an announced visit at the administrative headquarters of the provider (NEMS Community Benefit Services Limited) based in Fanum House, Nottingham on 18 October 2018 to review the administrative and management processes in place to deliver a quality service.

Updated 4 December 2018

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 17 & 20 April 2015 and was rated as Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at PC24 Out of Hours, also known as PC24 Kings Mill Hospital on 12 October 2018. We carried out this inspection in response to information of concern we had received. As part of this we also inspected the provider’s headquarters (NEMS Community Benefit Services Limited) based in Fanum House, Nottingham on 18 October 2018.

At this inspection we found:

• The service had good systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the service learned from them and improved their processes.
• The provider demonstrated effective joint working arrangements with key partners to develop-coordinated care.
• The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Regular audits were carried out on the quality of care being provided by clinical staff. Actions were taken to improve any performance that falls below expectations.
• The service was responsive to patients’ needs. It provided face-to-face consultations, telephone consultations and home visits depending on the needs of patients.
• This was an unannounced inspection therefore, we were unable to receive feedback from patients during the inspection. However, patient feedback received by the service demonstrated that staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients were able to access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs. Processes were in place to identify patients that needed more urgent attention.
• The service was aware of some of the challenges to deliver quality care and was taking action to address them.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Consider appropriate signage in the waiting room to alert patients on action to take if their condition is worsening.
• Develop the staff induction programme to include a site specific induction.
• Ensure appropriate oversight of risk assessments by the hospital. For example, those in relation to legionella, health and safety and fire.
• Consider record keeping for consent when using a chaperone for intimate examinations.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice