Archived: Midford House

This service is rated as Good overall. (This was their first inspection)

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? – Outstanding

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Banes Enhanced Medical Services + Limited at Midford House as part of our inspection programme. The organisation provides a wide range of services including fracture clinics, dermatology clinics, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnostics, vasectomy surgery an earlier Home Visiting Service, and a Patient Referral Support Service to the whole of the population in the locality.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Midford House provides a referral support service which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on this service.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of diagnostics and screening, surgical procedures, maternity and midwifery and the treatment of disease, disorder and injury.

Thirty three patients provided written feedback about theorganisation , via CQC Comments Cards. We also spoke with 14 patients during our inspection. All patients commented on the high standard of care provided by clinical staff as well as the kindness and courtesy offered by reception staff. All patients said they felt involved in decision-making about the care and treatment they received. They told us they felt listened to and supported by staff, and with 15 minute appointments in improving access for example, they had sufficient time during consultations to make an informed decision about the choice of treatment available to them.

Our key findings were:

• The provider provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• There were comprehensive systems to keep people safe, which take account of current best practice.
• Services were planned and delivered in a way that met the needs of the local population. The importance of flexibility, choice and continuity of care was reflected in the services provided.
• 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 provider organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.

We saw the following outstanding practice:

• The provider was an integral part of the local community and actively promoted the health of the population. Feedback from patients was consistently positive about the service they received from them
• The culture of the provider and the way it was led and managed drove the delivery and improvement of high-quality, person-centred care.
• Leaders had an inspiring shared purpose, striving to deliver and motivate staff to succeed. There was a strong culture of continuous improvement.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care