The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Bosworth Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Chelmsley Wood Primary Care Centre, Crabtree Drive, Birmingham, West Midlands, B37 5BU (0121) 770 4484

Provided and run by:
Bosworth 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 Bosworth 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 Bosworth Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

16 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focussed inspection of Bosworth Medical Practice on 16 October 2019. We carried out an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This inspection focused on the following key questions: Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This included how the practice provided effective and responsive care across the six population groups. The six population groups are:

  • Older people
  • People with long-term conditions
  • Families, children and young people
  • Working age people (including those recently retired and students)
  • People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable
  • People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the Good ratings for the key question of Safe.

You can read the reports from our last inspections by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bosworth Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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.

Following this inspection we have rated this practice as good for providing caring and well-led services and good for providing effective care to all the population groups with the exception of working age people which was rated as requires improvement for effective care.

We rated the service as requires improvement for providing responsive services to all the population groups. The practice is rated as good overall.

We found that:

  • The practice was based in a deprived area with socio-economic deprivation. Evidence and feedback gathered during our inspection highlighted a theme whereby despite efforts, the practice faced challenges in engaging their population in health reviews and general practice processes across areas including engagement in the childhood immunisation schedule, cervical screening and systems for booking appointments.
  • Overall, Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) exception rates showed improvement yet remained above average in some areas. When we looked at a sample of cases that had been exception reported , we saw they had been done so appropriately.
  • Uptake rates for primary immunisations were above World Health Organisation (WHO) targets for 2018/19 however targets specifically for booster vaccinations were below target. Unverified and unpublished data provided by the practice showed the practice were meeting targets for booster uptake for the year so far.
  • Public Health England (PHE) data showed that the practices cervical screening uptake rates for 2017/18 were below target. Unpublished and unverified data from the practices patient record system supported efforts made to improve uptake.
  • The results from the national GP patient survey with regards to questions about access, listening, care and concern as well as overall experience were below local and national average. Results from the practices more recent in-house survey were more positive.
  • Feedback about actual care and treatment was positive and staff expressed that in some areas they felt the results stemmed from patients expectations regarding access. Overall, we noted that the practice was working through these challenges by making efforts to change the culture of the practice and were working through patient education around general practice processes.
  • Overall appointments offered in the practice were above the national average and patients had seven-day access to appointments through the practices primary care network (PCN).
  • We noted efforts to improve patient satisfaction with regards to access, including implementing a new telephone system, recruiting more clinical staff to offer more appointments, adaptations to the appointment system and increasing appointments for online booking. Whilst we saw efforts undertaken to improve access there was no evidence provided to determine if these efforts had improved patient experience in this area, at the time of our inspection.
  • There was clinical mentorship in place for clinical staff including nurses, the practice paramedic and pharmacist. There was formal supervision in place which included regular reviews of prescribing practice for prescribers including a process of peer review and consultation audits.

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

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue with efforts to improve uptake of childhood immunisations in specific areas and cervical cancer screening.
  • Continue to capture and identify carers in order to offer them support where needed.
  • Continue with efforts to improve patient satisfaction where feedback highlights areas for improvement and analyse changes implemented to demonstrate impact and to identify areas for further changes.
  • Continue to engage patients in reviews and further reduce exception reporting rates.

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

21 February 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 10 April 2015 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Requires improvement

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection Bosworth Medical Centre on 21 February 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had comprehensive systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. We saw that when incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes and that learning was shared with staff throughout the practice.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment were delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • Patients reported that GPs and nurses treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Most patients we spoke with expressed difficulty in gaining access to the practice by telephone, but reported that when they did they were able to get an appointment. Older patients and those who were vulnerable were provided with a specific number to gain immediate access if they needed to speak with a GP.
  • The GPs were committed to improving patient outcomes and demonstrated a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to explore ways of improving telephone access.
  • Introduce a formal system to monitor the quality of prescribing of non-medical prescribers.
  • Improve computer read coding generally to remove the need for high exception reporting.
  • Continue to increase the identification of carers on the register.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 April 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection at Bosworth Medical Centre on 10 April 2015.

Overall we have rated the practice as good for safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led services for the population it served.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Systems were in place to ensure that all staff had access to relevant national patient safety alerts. Staff worked together as a team to ensure they provided safe, co-ordinated patient care.
  • We found that patients were treated with respect and their privacy was maintained. Patients informed us they were satisfied with the standards of care they received.
  • Patients we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care they received and their medicines were regularly reviewed.
  • The practice was visibly clean and tidy. Annual audits were carried out and resultant actions taken to protect patients from unnecessary infections when they visited the practice.
  • The practice had a clear vision to deliver high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients. This was evident when speaking with staff and patients during our inspection.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 October 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with seven patients, two doctors and three members of staff. After our inspection, we spoke with a patient who was also a member of the Patients in Partnership Group over the telephone.

Four patients we spoke with were satisfied with the appointment system and when necessary were given an appointment on the same day. Three patients told us they found it difficult to get through to the surgery by telephone at times and were not yet familiar with the new appointment system. This had had been introduced two weeks earlier. One told us: 'The phones are always busy first thing in the morning, but you can usually get through later on in the day. With the new system, you know a doctor will call you back the same day and they will always see you if you need to be seen that day.'

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to.

The practice is located in a modern building with two floors. It is fully accessible for people with disabilities and has a lift. There were disabled parking bays close to the entrance in the car park. The surgery is also fitted with a hearing aid loop. One patient said: 'The building is much better than the old one and I can easily move around it.'

We found the practice to be clean and well organised. Processes were in place to minimise the risk of infection. There were also processes in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system for regularly obtaining opinions from patients about the standard of the service they received.