The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

St Peter's Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

30-36 Oxford Street, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 4LA (01273) 606006

Provided and run by:
St Peter's Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

29 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection of St Peter's Medical Centre on 29 June 2021 because breaches of regulation were found at our previous inspection.

Following our previous inspection on 15 October 2019, the practice was rated good overall but requires improvement for providing safe services. The practice was rated good for providing effective, caring, responsive and well led services. All population groups were rated good.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection to confirm whether the provider now met the legal requirements of regulations and to ensure enough improvements had been made.

At our last inspection, we rated St Peter’s Medical Centre as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

  • Staff files did not always contain evidence that appropriate recruitment checks had been completed.
  • The practice did not demonstrate that staff records were held for all recommended vaccinations.
  • The practice could not demonstrate there was an effective system for the production of Patient Specific Directions (an instruction to supply and/or administer a medicine, written and signed by a prescriber, to individually named patients).

We also identified areas where the provider should make improvements. These were:

  • Review and update the chaperone and recruitment policies regarding disclosure and barring (DBS) check requirements.
  • Review and strengthen the training provided to staff on sepsis and serious infection.
  • Strengthen the systems to monitor and track blank prescriptions through the practice.
  • Continue to explore options to ensure all leaders receive regular appraisal.
  • Continue to monitor and take action to improve performance for areas that are not in line with targets or England and local averages, including the GP patient survey results, patients prescribed dependency forming medicines and the uptake of childhood immunisation and cervical screening.

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:

  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • Reviewing patient records to identify any issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • A short site visit.
  • Speaking with staff both on and off site.

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.

The practice continues to be rated good overall and is now rated good for providing safe services.

We found that:

  • The practice had effective processes to ensure that pre and post employment checks were completed. This included DBS checks for chaperones.
  • The practice had improved their monitoring and recording of staff vaccinations.
  • There were systems and processes to ensure that Patient Specific Directions were produced appropriately.
  • All staff received annual training to recognise the symptoms of serious infection or sepsis.
  • The practice ensured all staff received an annual appraisal.
  • Blank prescriptions were kept securely and there were systems to monitor their use, including when distributed throughout the practice.
  • Improvements to practice performance was seen for GP patient survey results.
  • The number of patients prescribed dependency forming medicines, the uptake of childhood immunisation and cervical screening continued to be outside of the expected range. However, we saw evidence of positive and proactive work by staff to improve performance in the future.

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

  • Continue to monitor and take action to improve performance for areas that are not in line with targets or England and local averages, including the number of patients prescribed dependency forming medicines, and the uptake of childhood immunisation and cervical screening.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

15 Oct 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Peter’s Medical Centre on 15 October 2019 as part of our inspection programme. In December 2018 the practice merged with another GP practice in Brighton, North Laine Medical Centre, which has now closed. Prior to its closure that practice was placed in special measures and due to the associated risk, we carried out this inspection of St Peter’s Medical Centre.

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 rated as good (previous rating in February 2016 - good).

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

  • Staff files did not always contain evidence that appropriate recruitment checks had been completed.
  • The practice did not demonstrate that staff records were held for all recommended vaccinations.
  • The practice could not demonstrate there was an effective system for the production of Patient Specific Directions.

At this inspection our key findings were:

  • We observed staff interacting positively with patients, who were treated with kindness and respect.
  • Feedback from patients who used the service was consistently positive. Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • Staff worked well together as a team. There was a culture of working together for a common aim.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff were developed and supported to ensure services were of high quality.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care. Staff told us the merger had been sensitively handled and well managed. They looked forward to the future redevelopment of the practice building.
  • The practice had a culture of quality improvement. They were engaged in local initiatives and worked alongside partners in the local healthcare system effectively.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure that care and treatment is provided in a safe way.
  • Ensure recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and update the chaperone and recruitment policies regarding DBS check requirements.
  • Review and strengthen the training provided to staff on sepsis and serious infection.
  • Strengthen the systems to monitor and track blank prescriptions through the practice.
  • Continue to explore options to ensure leaders receive regular appraisal.
  • Continue to monitor and take action to improve performance for areas that are not in line with targets, including the GP patient survey results, patients prescribed hypnotics and the uptake of childhood immunization and cervical screening.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

05 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St. Peter’s Medical Practice on 5 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.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they could make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • 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 found two areas where the provider should make improvement:

  • The reception area would benefit from a more formal queuing system to encourage only one person at a time to approach the reception desk. This would improve the level of confidentiality.
  • The practice should continue to improve their phone system and look at ways of improving this service.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice