The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Petersgate Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

99 Amersall Road, Scawthorpe, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, DN5 9PQ (01302) 390490

Provided and run by:
Petersgate Medical Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Petersgate Medical Centre is an NHS GP practice which provides primary care services to patients in the Doncaster area of South Yorkshire. We carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive at Petersgate Medical Centre on the 26 February 2024. We carried out the assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet peoples demands for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers. We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know staff are carrying this out whilst the demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. However, in this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. The assessment of the quality statement equity of access includes looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement. Overall, the practice is rated as good and the key question responsive continues to be rated as providing a good service. We found that the practice had organised services to meet patients’ needs, particularly those who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care, so that people can access care, treatment and support when they need it and in a way that works for them. The practice sought out and used feedback and other data/information to monitor and improve access.

5 and 6 September 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Petersgate Medical Centre on 5 and 6 September 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 23 February 2016 the practice was rated Good overall.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Petersgate Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out a comprehensive inspection due to the previous age of the inspection rating (over five years).

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.
  • Patient’s individual needs and preferences were central to the delivery of practices services.
  • The practice used innovative approaches to ensure services were delivered in a way that was convenient for patients. For example, they introduced ‘covid boxes’ containing equipment to check symptomatic patients with covid and to monitor patients for any signs of deterioration. They also worked collaboratively with a neighbouring practice to establish a monthly diabetic support group.
  • There was compassionate and inclusive leadership who strove to motivate staff to succeed and ensure succession planning was embedded. There were high levels of satisfaction confirmed via staff feedback forms and in the staff survey. There were consistently high levels of constructive engagement with patients and the PPG.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Standardise medication reviews to ensure monitoring checks are reviewed
  • Continue with plans to review historic safety alerts.
  • Continue with plans to improve uptake of cervical cytology screening.

We saw examples of outstanding practice:

  • The practice used innovative approaches to ensure services were delivered in a way that is convenient for patients. At the beginning of the pandemic the practice introduced ‘covid boxes’ containing equipment to check symptomatic patients with covid and to monitor patients for any signs of deterioration. These were used at home visits or in the practice car park. The clinician would be in contact by telephone/text with the patient to monitor and arrange admission should the patient deteriorate. This innovative scheme was adopted by Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in November 2020 and rolled out to other practices. The practice said this had helped reduced any unnecessary hospital admissions.

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

23 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr B J McKenna and partners on 23 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently and strongly positive.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it difficult to get through to the practice by telephone first thing in the morning.  Once their call was answered they told us it was easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group.  For example, the waiting area was reviewed to promote access for patients in wheelchairs. Practice staff facilitated a talk for patients and people from the local area about diabetes in the community library adjacent to the practice. Patients told us this was very informative and were looking forward to the next one about asthma, scheduled in March 2016.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • Practice staff facilitated a talk for patients and people from the surrounding areas about diabetes in the community library adjacent to the practice. Patients told us this was very informative and they were looking forward to the next one about asthma, scheduled in March 2016.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice