The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Selden Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

6 Selden Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2LL (01903) 234962

Provided and run by:
Dr Venkata Suresh Babu Vitta

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Selden Medical Centre 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 Selden Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

29 May 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Selden Medical Centre on 29 May 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

At our last inspection in July 2018 we rated the practice as requires improvement overall. Specifically, we said they must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure patients are protected from abuse and improper treatment.

We also found areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Put a system in place to ensure the ongoing registration of clinical staff is checked and regularly monitored.
  • Continue to implement measures to improve telephone access and appointment availability.
  • Provide awareness training for all staff on the ‘red flag’ sepsis symptoms that might be reported by patients and how to respond.
  • Improve the identification of carers so that they can be offered appropriate support.
  • Implement a programme of continuous improvement.

At this inspection, we found that the provider had satisfactorily addressed these areas.

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.

Overall this practice is now rated as good and good for all population groups.

We rated the practice good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive services and well led services because:

  • Learning from significant events and complaints was used and shared effectively to make improvements.
  • Risks to patients, staff and visitors were assessed, monitored and managed in an effective manner.
  • The practice reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • Practice performance against the quality and outcomes framework indicators showed that practice performance had improved in areas where it had previously been underperforming, for example for patients suffering with dementia.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patient feedback was positive about the care and treatment the provided.
  • Arrangements were in place to ensure appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were maintained.
  • There was a patient participation group in place who told us that they had seen improvements within the practice. They told us the practice listened to patient views and acted on them, for example in relation to the appointments system.
  • Staff were positive about working in the practice and felt valued and supported by the new leadership. They had access to essential training and were encouraged to develop in their roles.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to monitor and improve performance against the quality and outcomes framework indicators for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension and mental health.
  • Continue to monitor and improve patient satisfaction in key areas such as having confidence and trust in the healthcare professionals.
  • Ensure outstanding actions from the fire risk assessment are implemented.
  • Improve the uptake for cervical screening to ensure at least 80% coverage in line with the national target.
  • Improve the identification of carers so that they can be offered appropriate support.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

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

19 July 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as requires improvement overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Inadequate

Are services effective? – Requires improvement

Are services caring? – Requires improvement

Are services responsive? – Requires improvement

Are services well-led? – Requires improvement

We carried out an announced inspection at Selden Medical Centre on 19 July 2018 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had recently been through several changes to its partnership, clinical staffing and management which meant that leadership and capacity had been reduced and systems and processes were not yet embedded.
  • Practice leaders were aware of the issues and priorities relating to the quality and future of services. They understood the challenges and were addressing them.
  • The practice 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.
  • The practice listened to and acted on patient views. For example, in response to GP patient survey feedback, improvements had been made to the appointment system.
  • Patient feedback on the day of the inspection was positive in relation to the care and treatment received.
  • Systems for managing risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen were not always effective. For example, learning from incidents and the action taken were not consistently shared or followed up.
  • The practice did not have an effective system for ensuring patient and medicine safety alerts were acted on.
  • Practice performance against the quality and outcomes framework (QOF) indicators for patients with long term mental health conditions and patients with high blood pressure was significantly lower than the local and national average. Exception reporting rates were significantly higher than average for several indicators. (Exception reporting is the removal of patients from QOF calculations where, for example, the patients are unable to attend a review meeting or certain medicines cannot be prescribed because of side effects).
  • The practice performed below the national target for two out of the four childhood vaccines.
  • Arrangements for ensuring appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were maintained were not always effective.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure patients are protected from abuse and improper treatment.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Put a system in place to ensure the ongoing registration of clinical staff is checked and regularly monitored.
  • Continue to implement measures to improve telephone access and appointment availability.
  • Provide awareness training for all staff on the ‘red flag’ sepsis symptoms that might be reported by patients and how to respond.
  • Improve the identification of carers so that they can be offered appropriate support.
  • Implement a programme of continuous improvement.

Where a service is rated as inadequate for one of the five key questions or one of the six population groups, it will be re-inspected no longer than six months after the report is published. If, after re-inspection, the service has failed to make sufficient improvement, and is still rated as inadequate for any key question or population group or overall, we will place the service into special measures. Being placed into special measures represents a decision by CQC that a service must improve within six months to avoid CQC taking steps to cancel the provider’s registration.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.