The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

University Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Quarry House, North Road, Claverton Down, Bath, Avon, BA2 7AY (01225) 789100

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

07 November 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at University Medical Centre on 7 November 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We carried out an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us including that 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 and Well Led; and all patient population groups except Older People.

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions:

  • Safe - Good
  • Caring - Good
  • Responsive - Good

and for the Older People population group – Good.

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 and good for all population groups inspected.

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 organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

At the last inspection in 2016 we found areas where the provider should make improvements including with regard to health and safety audit actions; staff HR records; and emergency equipment and medicines.

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

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

  • Review arrangements for quality improvement, including clinical audits. We saw only one audit had a second audit cycle completed in order to assess the benefits of changes made from the first audit.
  • Continue to focus on arrangements to improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening for eligible patients.

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

13 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at University Medical Practice on 13 April 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 found it easy to 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 saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had successfully participated in public health initiatives such as for sexual and reproductive health. This has led to the practice being recognised by the local public health department as the largest deliverer of chlamydia testing to 15-24 year olds across all primary care services in the Bath and North East Somerset area. This has successfully reduced the impact of this sexually transmitted infection in the locality.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • The provider should follow the recommendations of the external health and safety audit so the outstanding actions are responded to and met.
  • The provider should consider minor changes to the application form used to reflect potential employees full work history and any gaps in employment explained.
  • The provider should review aspects of safety. This in order to identify if there are any risks to emergency equipment and medicines being tampered with when a member of staff was not in attendance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

7 March 2014

During a routine inspection

When we visited the University Medical Centre we spoke with two GPs, the practice manager, two nurses, one health care assistant, two reception and two administration staff. We spoke with people who were part of the Patient Participation Group. The people we met were happy with the service they received. One person told us; 'they are incredibly helpful and always very professional. I cannot speak highly enough.' Another person said; 'they are always very friendly and I feel a sense of trust but I know I could ask any questions or ask another doctors opinion if I wanted.'

We found the practice respected and involved people. The people we spoke with told us there was information to make choices about their treatments. They appreciated the friendliness and efficiency of staff at all levels. People were encouraged to express their views and given opportunities in be involved in how the practice was run. The most recent patient feedback surveys showed positive comments and satisfaction.

The surgery had systems and processes to cooperate with other services and professionals. This enabled referrals for patients to be made appropriately and promptly. The surgery had established links with the local university in order to develop access and services for students from overseas.

All staff understood how to recognise the signs and symptoms of abuse of a vulnerable adult or a child. Staff training in safeguarding was in date and staff had access to safeguarding policies and procedures. Safeguarding procedures and processes were visible throughout the surgery.

Records demonstrated the surgery had clear recruitment processes which were ordered and well maintained. Each employee had a personnel file which included records which showed reference and other essential checks had taken place prior to employment.

The surgery had appropriate systems to receive, respond to and monitor complaints. People told us they knew how to make a complaint and said they felt any issues would be dealt with swiftly and appropriately. Information on how to make a complaint was available at the surgery on the surgery website.