Archived: Dr Wageeh Mikhail

Updated 6 April 2017

Dr Wageeh Mikhail provides primary medical services to approximately 6,314 patients through a general medical services (GMS) contract.

The services are provided from a single location. The practice is situated in a former mining community. The practice population live in one of the less deprived areas of the country, although the practice has a higher than average older population of both males and females.

The practice team comprises two male GPs. There is one full time partner GP, and one part time salaried GP. This equates to 15 sessions per week. The practice utilises a number of regular Locum GPs, to provide consistency for patients. Locum GP sessions equates to a total of 11 sessions per week. One of these works three regular sessions each week. The clinical team are supported by a full time lead nurse who is an independent prescriber, one practice nurse and one healthcare assistant and one phlebotomist (who are all female).

The practice employs a practice manager and nine administrative and reception staff. Two of these are supervisors and three are apprentices.

The practice opens between 8am and 6.30pm Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. The practice opens at 7am on Tuesdays and for one Saturday each month between 8.30am and 12.30pm. Appointments are available from 8am to 12.30pm and from 1.30pm to 5.30pm on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and from 7am to 12.30pm and 1.30pm to 5.30pm on Tuesday. The practice also opens one Saturday per month from 8.30am to 12.30pm.

An out-of-hours service is provided by Nottingham Emergency Medical Service (NEMS) through the NHS 111 number.

Updated 6 April 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at

Dr Wageeh Mikhail on 23 June 2015. The overall rating for the practice was good. The practice was rated as good in all domains except for the ‘safe’ domain which was rated as ‘requires improvement’. The full comprehensive report on the June 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Wageeh Mikhail on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 14 February 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to make recommended improvements identified in our previous inspection on 23 June 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as Good

Our key findings were as follows:

• Our previous inspection highlighted concerns regarding the tracking and monitoring of blank prescription forms and pads and how these were handled. Action had been taken to address these concerns and we observed a comprehensive, safe and effective tracking system in place.
• Our previous inspection highlighted concerns regarding the assessment of risks to patients and staff. The practice had taken action immediately and procured an external company to make a full comprehensive health and safety risk assessment for the practice. This had generated an action plan and we saw that all actions had been taken to address any shortfalls. We also observed that staff were aware of the importance of health and safety in the workplace and that risk assessments were completed where required. We also noted that health and safety issues and risk assessment was discussed at practice meetings and reception meetings. They had also implemented a hazards/risk matrix which was accessible on the practice’s computer for all staff to log health and safety issues and risk. These were discussed and actions taken to address them.
• Our previous inspection highlighted that, although records of minor surgical procedures were being maintained, these did not include detail about the outcomes of the procedures. Action had been taken and we saw that a formal audit had been conducted based on the information collated for 2014 to 2015 and that comprehensive information was being collected for April 2016 to March 2017 in preparation for a formal audit. The information collected included outcomes of the procedure, histology reports, consent, post-operative infection, and referrals to secondary care.
• Our previous inspection highlighted that recruitment checks for new staff needed to be strengthened. We saw that action had been taken and that the three new staff recruited since the June 2015 inspection had appropriate checks and comprehensive records were maintained. This included DBS checks and an updated, comprehensive reference request from previous employers. We also noted that new staff were required to sign a confidentiality agreement and this was kept in their staff file.
• Since the June 2015 inspection, the practice had actively reviewed some of their processes and made changes where required to improve these. Staff were encouraged to share ideas for improvement. For example; a newly recruited a reception supervisor identified two areas for improvement within the reception area. These were discussed with management which resulted in additional training for staff in use of spillage kits and a protocol was drawn up to support this. A protocol was also implemented to support reception staff in managing ‘ad hoc’ specimens brought to the practice by patients and allied health professionals. The protocol included use of a checklist to ensure sufficient information was obtained prior to accepting the specimen

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 6 April 2017

There were no concerns relating to this population group identified in the June 2015 inspection which was rated as good.

The rating of good in the safe domain is applied to all population groups including this one.

Updated 6 April 2017

There were no concerns relating to this population group identified in the June 2015 inspection which was rated as good.

The rating of good in the safe domain is applied to all population groups including this one.

Updated 6 April 2017

There were no concerns relating to this population group identified in the June 2015 inspection which was rated as good.

The rating of good in the safe domain is applied to all population groups including this one.

Updated 6 April 2017

There were no concerns relating to this population group identified in the June 2015 inspection which was rated as good.

The rating of good in the safe domain is applied to all population groups including this one.

Updated 6 April 2017

There were no concerns relating to this population group identified in the June 2015 inspection which was rated as good.

The rating of good in the safe domain is applied to all population groups including this one.

Updated 6 April 2017

There were no concerns relating to this population group identified in the June 2015 inspection which was rated as good.

The rating of good in the safe domain is applied to all population groups including this one.